*Disclaimer* I am by no means saying that this is an unbiased account. The original post that was immediately posted after the meeting wasn’t entirely unbiased either since the bishop read it over first and told me what to change.*

I’m Jennifer Milad. Around late August, I created a petition asking the church to change its’ sexual harassment policy. The concern grew from the fact that other dioceses have changed their policies in wake of a #Churchtoo movement, which raises awareness of sexual harassment from clergymen within the Coptic church, yet I saw no published changes from the Southern United States Diocese. I had a series of emails that led to this meeting-they can be found in the updates on the petition. Eventually, I had around 500 names and decided to show the list to the bishop in the meeting described below. As mentioned, there was a brief and concise post prior to this one.  The purpose of this update/post is to share my point of view/ perspective of the meeting that occurred between the Bishop and I. 

I went into a priest’s office getting ready for the meeting with the bishop. I had someone else planned to come in with me, but couldn’t make it and asked to join over zoom. As I was setting up my laptop for the zoom call, the Bishop let me know he refuses to have a meeting over zoom, and that anyone who wanted to talk with him must do it in person.  He insisted the meeting not be recorded as well, which I respected as I did not want to make him uncomfortable. A nun was present with the Bishop and I in the meeting.  He requested I put away all electronics, which I would've used to read off my agenda( it was sent to him via email). He asked me about my age, what I'm studying, my confession father, etc.  I pitched my goals for this meeting:

1)  I wanted him to write down the policies that the people want and then sign at the bottom 

2)  Post it to let people know what will be added to the new policy,

 He agreed to write down the policies from the petition as well as incorporate other pitched ideas, such as a database to prevent priests with a history of harassment from being hired elsewhere. I showed him the list of names of the people who signed the petition to show that the signatures were not just from Nashville, Tennessee,  but from all over the world. The Bishop also mentioned that there wasn’t a policy before he took service as bishop. He asked me if anyone had asked him for policies. I had Stephanie’s case* in mind, but I said no. Again, I didn’t want him to feel attacked; I felt that if he was irritated nothing would get done. People before the meeting had warned me that the meetings would end up in debate and aren’t fruitful. I honestly didn’t think there was something to debate about this issue. I was dumbfounded.  In this meeting, he also informed me when the new policy would be published- by the end of October 2020. However, when it came to signing the list of new policies that the people wanted, he was very defensive. He questioned why he would want to do that, to which I replied that it was a way to reassure everyone who is in support of the new policy/in support of justice for those who were sexually assaulted by a priest in this diocese. He replied, "I don’t care about the people. I care about God." I replied with, “we are one body."  I told him, “I trust you, but you can’t blame people for not trusting you, these people, the people that were abused, they have not only been sexually abused but also spiritually abused because they have been hurt by someone they thought they could  trust.” 

There was a lot of repetition of points that were already established: They kept on asking me what my point was multiple times. I reiterated that signing that paper cannot and will not hurt him. To which he replied that it might hurt him because he is hurt by the fact that I don’t "trust him." I talked about how other people don’t trust him and that his signature reaffirms that he cares. He mentioned a different diocese’s new policy and how the people were still not happy. I was not aware of the new policy due to it being posted only ten days prior to this meeting. I had not read this new policy therefore I could not say my input or criticize it- I also wanted to point out that saying a new policy won't make people happy was a generalization, but the Bishop, seeing that I caught their logical fallacy, changed the subject. 

He started getting defensive. He said, “I can’t confirm anything until my lawyers tell me to,” and continued on the basis of, “we can make this a legal conversation or a conversation between family, which one do you want?” I let him know that we can have a follow-up meeting that is a more legal conversation where he can bring his lawyer. Please note that I said this in the most supportive tone I could muster, yet he took it as a threat. He claimed that he was hurt that I didn’t want to talk to him as a father. He immediately switched this meeting to a legal meeting. This was the opposite of what I expected especially since neither of us had lawyers present. I became confused. He stated how he had the right to tell me that I cannot publish anything that happened in this meeting.  He mentioned the power of attorney and how I can’t represent the people on the petition without it, and asked me why I was here in the first place; I  responded that it was I who started the petition. I reiterated that we can have a follow-up meeting to discuss legal matters to which he refused. Stating that I was a minor (I’m 17), he refused to have a legal follow-up meeting. I answered by stating how it would be easier for him to sign since the agreement wouldn't be binding. He told me, “ you don't get it, I’m trying to talk to you legally. f I am not like your father then I am the CEO of this organization.” Tasoni defended him reiterating that I hurt him. 

At some point, I accepted the fact that there is no getting through to them and that this meeting is over. They did not want the meeting to end on bad terms, so the Bishop asked me, again, if I wanted to be treated as a customer or a daughter. Because I wanted to have approval of posting an update about this meeting, I replied that I wanted to be treated as his daughter. He saw that I looked stressed so he suggested we take a break and we spent a few minutes talking about favorite saints and such to calm down. Their conditions were that they had to read the update about the meeting before I posted it. Before leaving, I was asked if this meeting was an overall good meeting, where I responded that it did-because I was given a date for the new policy.  I was unsure if I had the right to publish anything without them reviewing my post. The fact that the meeting was not recorded and it was two against one did not reassure me; I had no knowledge of law, so I was bewildered. I reached out to many people that have helped me with the petition to give me insight on what my next step should be. I have decided to post the brief description of how the meeting went, and would be open to answer any questions about it.

*source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2548364/stephanie-m-v-coptic-orthodox-diocese/