Jo Rhett (jorhett) wrote,
Jo Rhett
jorhett

The ongoing conversation about how #WSFS treats newcomers

So there has been a lot of conversations on twitter and tumbler and other blogs about my previous post about Donald Eastlake's shameful acts in the WSFS business meeting.

Due to the limitations of Twitter for speaking longer thoughts, and my apparent inability to figure out how to reply on Tumbler, I'm going to summarize the comments here and my responses:
Slightly edited to include information which Aiglet quite correctly pointed out I hadn't included in my original post.

The video doesn't show what you describe.


That's a very interesting denial of easily visible facts.

1. Find me any other proposal where Donald sneers when announcing the proposal. Even the people who disagree with me on every point admit that Don admitted to his personal feelings here.

2. Observe at 7:18 how Donald specifically tells the speaker to wait until the proposal was on the floor for debate, then at 15:45 when the proposal was up for consideration failed to recognize her for the same motion. This is not the "fault of Robert's Rules" -- this is the clear act to prevent contribution. The issue is that I have seen Don previously recognize a motion, and specifically to caution that an OTC would include not just the proposal but the motion. He could have done this, has done this repeatedly for white males, and he did not do it this day.

3. Observe at 16:40 how Donald specifically admits that by allowing the OTC to proceed he has prevented her from making her motion. Now out comes arguments that the room didn't want her motion to proceed, which completely fails as nobody, not a single person, objected to the same motion when it was presented by a white male later in the meeting. So no, the room did not want to prevent this motion from coming forward. They were objecting to the original proposal, which Donald twisted to block them both.

I have presented my proof. The video backs up my claims. If you want to claim that the video does not show these things, then you need to back up your claim with facts that can be verified.

Aiglet disagrees with your interpretation of events


There are two factors here:

1. I am not a newcomer to WSFS proceedings, and I own and have read repeatedly the specific version of Robert's Rules of Order adopted by WSFS. I believe that I have a more informed view on whether or not Robert's Rules were abused to deny her the chance to make her motion. My belief is informed because I have witnessed Donald Eastlake give white males the opportunity that he denied to her.

2. She can obviously decide if she was treated badly. She either does not feel bad, or is in the uncomfortable position of needing to make politically convenient statements necessary to build a relationship with these people. I don't know, and I won't conjecture on this.

I wish her the very best in her efforts. If we do meet up and she gives me her address, I intend to mail her my copy of Robert's Rules of Order free of charge. We have met up, and I will be mailing her my copy of Robert's Rules.

Finally, Aiglet attributes to the meeting in general or Kevin's kindness that he stood up to make the motion that she is happy about. I agree that Kevin was kind to do it, but I employed many arguments (as did others I think) to convince him to do it. I am not convinced it would have happened on its own.

You haven't made a convincing argument for the "white" part of your complaint.


In brutal honesty, I haven't justified that anything other than newcomers are unwelcome. However, the fact that I've watched for 10 years while women and people of color have received poor treatment at the hands of a white male cabal informs my opinion.

Whether or not Donald Eastlake did what he did because he didn't like her, didn't like her proposal, or any other reason is not clear. I'm not a mind reader. But these actions justify the opinion of people who have come to the same opinion that I have come to: WSFS isn't interested in any opinion than that of their white male cabal.

Comments will be screened: I will allow any comment which is not a personal attack on another person.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 2 comments