Incidents of Harm: Process and Procedure.
Acknowledgements of Limitation:
Temple will work with anyone who experiences a harmful encounter that occurs in our space to support interpersonal communication and to support repair.
Temple will not organize or lead accountability processes because it is an inherent conflict of interest. Temple members are willing to be included in accountability processes as community members and as organizers of a space.
Temple can help direct people to resources for those affected by incidence of harm.
Temple can not bear responsibility for incidents that occur outside of our space unless a direct request is made to address/ block a person by way of our reporting system.
Temple cannot bear responsibility for any incidents that are not reported directly to our reporting partners with clear requests for direct action.
The difference between seeking individual repair and filing an official report:
Having a report “on the record” means that information will be shared between S.S.S.S. and Temple New York with respect to privacy requests and maintaining anonymity if requested, and actions will be taken following the report. This could mean enforcing bans, permanent, temporary, full, or partial; requests for more education on the offending part; an in-depth talk with us and possibly a professional so that Temple New York as an entity can be prepared to support those directly involved as well as the larger community. All of our staff and potentially staff in other places will have access to some/all the information, and handle it as they see fit for the safety of the immediate community, in respect of requests for anonymity and privacy.
Seeking individual repair - rather than action at the community level - might mean to clarify an interpersonal relationship issue, find closure after a separation or rupture, or feel that steps are taken so that a sense of safety can be restored. In this case temple as an entity won’t be privy to the details of the process unless the parties involved choose to share them and we will not take any official steps such as bans or interventions, but consider the incident as an interpersonal issue that has found satisfying resolution or that at least doesn’t put our community at risk in such a way that requires direct intervention or the sharing of information on a larger scale.
If you are concerned for community safety, a report and institutional intervention is probably best.
If you are looking for closure and personal repair, but don’t think there is a risk to the community, the personal approach might be more satisfactory.
Direct Repair/ Resolution:
Whenever possible, it is best that people who are in conflict work together to directly communicate and come to resolution. We recognize this is not always possible for a myriad of reasons. When possible, we recommend setting up a mediated talk with a small group of people who are close to those who were affected in order to build a safer container for hard truths to come out and be discussed in a supported space.
Incident Reporting Process/ Protocols:
We are working with a group building a system of reporting that is a community wide network connecting multiple venues and organizations called “Safer Sexy Spaces Services” (S.S.S.S.). We are working with this group which is composed of professional social workers, psychologists and activists within NYC kink and nightlife spaces. In order to better serve those who experienced harm, we request that they be reported to this group. Every incident that is reported will be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Incident Reporting:
When Direct Communication with the Person who Harmed is not Possible/Satisfactory:
Incident Occurs
Details are communicated by the person who was harmed to their personal circle who can provide Primary Support.
Incident Report is prepared and submitted. This can be done anonymously or with contact information if follow-up is desired (Recommended).
Incident Report is received by S.S.S.S.
S.S.S.S. processes the report and responds to reportee if contact information is provided, secondary support is provided to the reportee.
S.S.S.S. contacts Temple with a brief compiled from the report directing actions to be taken.
Temple contacts the person who was reported on and initiates our Institutional Response based on our stated response policies.
Temple New York reports back to S.S.S.S. with a brief describing the actions taken and the person being reported-on’s response.
S.S.S.S. communicates back to the reportee to review the actions taken and to inquire about desired next steps (mediated resolution, etc)
Temple follows up with the person who was reported on and S.S.S.S. to check progress of the accountability process.
Temple Consent Incidence Criteria:
We believe in addressing all incidents on a case by case basis and also acknowledge that having guidelines in place helps those responding to better consider a path forward that can lead to effective outcomes for everyone involved. S.S.S.S. will refer to the following set of criteria to guide their process, each case will be addressed with as appropriate a response as possible based on the details of the incident.
Level 1:
Evident lack of understanding of Consent Model outlined in the Temple Consent Concepts that has led to the likelihood of harm or injury. May include playing above your skillset, attempting to up-negotiating a scene, insufficient negotiation technique, poor communication style, etc. The criteria of this level does not assume negative intent but reflects poor practices that are clearly in need of intervention in order to help prevent potential harm or injury from occurring.
TempleNewYork proposes that these cases would be best handled by a small group or individual intervention addressing the person being reported on in order to acknowledge, examine, and better educate the reportee, steering them back onto the path of better practices. This level of incident response would not prohibit the reportee from participating in community, rather it would require them to demonstrate that they understand their transgression and are willing and able to integrate their re-education into their practice.
Level 2:
Evident Harm or Injury has Occurred (Presumes Unintentional Impact)
TempleNewYork proposes that these cases would be best handled by a professional mediator or a circle of people close to both parties, depending on the wishes of the person harmed as well as the following Institutional Response: The person who caused harm would be contacted by TempleNY and put on a mandatory pause from any activities in our space in order to focus on addressing the harm they have caused and to make amends with the person they have harmed. At the end of the pause, the person who caused harm would be required to inform TempleNY of the steps they have taken to address and repair their actions and the resulting outcomes.
Level 3:
Recklessness, Disregard of Consent, Intentional Boundary Crossing, Physical/ Sexual/ Psychological Assault (Presumes Intentionality)
TempleNewYork proposes that this is where we draw a hard line and indefinitely restrict the person from our space. If they are willing, the person who caused harm would be referred to an exterior accountability circle that would lead and conduct an accountability process centering the harmed individual’s requests. If this accountability process is worked to a positive outcome, then a restorative process can be set into motion in hopes of reintegrating the person who caused harm back into the community.