Weekly word count: 2731
Editing countdown: 39 chapters done for first pass through, 4 weeks to go
Let's start with the big news. The auditor's report on what happened with the Tisdale/Davis complaint that launched the RWA shitstorm was released this week. One of the reasons why I hung on to my RWA membership was that I wanted to see the report. I wasn't sure it would be released to the public or restricted to members. I've gone through the whole thing (The report itself is 58 pages, plus hefty appendices) but the law firm summarized their findings as follows:
- RWA members don't know what's actually in the Code of Ethics, including those serving on the Ethics Committee
- the Code of Ethics has been updated on an ad hoc basis, which has allowed for contradictory provisions
- the Ethics Committee failed to report on what interpretation and evidence they used to reach their conclusion
- the Board was not given the evidence and was told that they needed to accept the Ethics Committee's report or they were stating that they had no trust in the committee or its role. They were asked to judge based on analogies that were misrepresentative, rather than the actual evidence.
- The law firm concluded that there was not evidence of personal bias against Courtney but rather a complete failure to understand and follow policy and procedures, as well as inherent flaws within those policies and procedures.
If RWA had been following their own policies, this is what should have happened:
- When Tisdale and Davis filed their initial complaints, they should have been required to submit documentation about their claims of lost business. They also should have been advised that an ethics complaint was not the appropriate venue and told that if they wanted to pursue this, they should do so through the legal system, not RWA. (The Code of Ethics specifically puts social media as exempt from ethics complaints, but there is a category of "invidious discrimination" which is about defaming romance as a whole and this is apparently what was used to continue the complaint. The contradiction is one of the flaws in policy noted in the summary.)
- If it had gone through, the Ethics Committee should have asked for advice as to what the definition of "invidious discrimination" was. They apparently pulled a definition from the Internet which was not accurate. Invidious discrimination is a legal term with a specific definition, and if the complaint had been evaluated by that definition, it would have been clear that the complaint did not apply.
- Carol Ritter and Damon Suede were required to sign non-disclosure agreements to preserve the confidentiality of the Ethics Committee. They interpreted these NDAs to mean that they were not able to speak to the Board of Directors about the specifics of the complaint, including the evidence presented by Tisdale and Davis. The NDA should not have been drafted without the help of legal counsel, who also should have been clear as to the limitations.
- Due to their interpretation of the NDA, when it came time to present the Ethics Committee's report and recommendation to the RWA Board of Directors, the only information they were given was vague generalizations and analogies, including an analogy that what Courtney had done was the equivalent of sexual harassment and creating a hostile workplace. The Board was then told that they were not able to ask for more information without violating the confidentiality of the Ethics Committee or sending a message of distrust. Both of these requirements are false, the Board was required as part of their duty to personally examine the evidence and determine if the recommendation was appropriate. To blindly rely on the Ethics Committee is to give them a greater role than policy allows and creates the possibility of misuse and personal vendettas without any accountability.
Even if everything else had failed, when the Board saw the evidence, they would have been able to correct the Ethics Committee's error. Introducing an additional interpretation to asking for more information created a subtle level of coercion to accept. The Board could no longer judge the report strictly on its merits but were required to also consider the feelings and professional response of the Ethics Committee.
In other words, this was a full on failure of procedure due to misinterpretation, ignorance and inexperience. And yes, I do believe that racism played a part, but if the Board or the Ethics Committee had properly understood their roles and the procedures, they could have stopped it. (Not to place the blame solely on the Board, it's important to remember that this is the result of Tisdale and Davis making false claims in support of a racist acquisitions editor (Sue Grimshaw) and to defend a book with harmful, racist stereotypes.) I think (and this is just my own interpretation) that while there may not have been direct evidence of personal discrimination in how the complaint was handled, it is suspicious that the three people most responsible for pushing this complaint through (Allison Kelley, Damon Suede and Carol Ritter) all seem to have disliked Courtney and had butted heads with her on previous occasions.
This complaint and the consequences were the result of people getting offended because an individual expressed her opinion on problems with a book and another individual and did so using profanity. She was one of many people expressing concerns, including the then-President Elect of RWA, Carolyn Jewel. Couirtney was targeted unfairly and procedure was weaponized against her. That should not have been possible and frankly, RWA deserves the condemnation that has resulted from this disgraceful mess.
I am now waiting to vote in the March special election and see who is elected to the new Board of Directors and what direction they take. If they choose to make RWA a place which does not tolerate bigotry and prejudice, then I will remain a member. If the result is a wishy-washy "I'm sorry if I offended any special snowflakes" approach, then I'll be done.
I'm sure there will be more fallout. From what I can see, the auditors did a thorough job and anyone familiar with legalese will see the "OMG this was awful" subtext throughout the report. From what the report says, I believe that there was not a malicious, over-arching conspiracy. Unconscious racism and personal bias, absolutely yes, but not a conspiracy. That's good news, because you can't fight a malicious conspiracy, but you can ensure that opportunists don't have the chance to pursue personal vendettas within an organization.
So that's where things stand for now. Moving back to the personal side, I had something very strange happen. I drew the exact same cards for this week's Tarot as last week's Tarot, but in a slightly different order.
Last week, I drew the King of Swords, reversed, the Page of Cups, reversed, and the Four of Swords. Injustice, escapism, and recharging. This week I drew the King of Swords, reversed, the Four of Swords, and the Page of Cups, reversed. (And before anyone asks, I do a very thorough shuffle between draws.) I've never drawn the same cards twice in a row before.
The King of Swords, reversed, indicates injustice, unfairness, and intimidation. A situation where a decision has gone against the individual. The Page of Cups, reversed talks about concern for a child, lack of discipline causing difficulties, and wasting time and energy on pipe dreams. The Four of Swords indicates that it is time to take a break and reevaluate, getting some distance from one's regular routine, and can indicate a medical issue that requires a stay in a hospital.
Between the three of them, it's not an optimistic draw. The King of Swords staying consistently in the past indicates the injustice has already happened. The Page of Cups and Four of Swords suggests that I've been wasting time on something and need a break. Cups generally refer to emotions and swords refer to the intellect. This draw would actually work perfectly for the RWA situation, there was an injustice against Courtney, we've wasted a lot of time with denials and obfuscation and a refusal to admit what happened, and there are certainly a large number of members who are walking away to re-evaluate what to do next.
Too much for me. I'm going to continue to focus on my writing (which I refuse to consider a waste of time).
No comments:
Post a Comment