Female Role Models XII

Over the past week  the online community of science writers has faced a crisis of leadership, of confidence, and of ethics.  I've had a lot of conversations with people in the community - some wanting advice or perspective, some providing it. While I've tried to maintain a professional distance of sorts, it's difficult because ot the friendships I've forged over the years with some of those involved.

So much has been said about Bora and what he did, about the community, about sexual harassment, about credibility, and about self-worth. I don't have much to add. But I can continue a tradition on this blog - I can identify and celebrate female role models from all walks of life as a response to bad behavior by men. Instead of tearing women down, we should lift women up.

Obviously, it's impossible to overlook the courage it took for Monica Byrne, Hannah Waters and Kathleen Raven to share their stories.  I won't focus too much on them here today, however, because I don't think they should be seen only in the context of being harassed by the same man. While their courage in this situation is one part of what defines them, it's by no means the only thing.

For those who have not seen this feature on my blog before, you can find the others I've mentioned here. The criteria I use are very simple:

Someone an online mom can show her daughter [or son, a great point my wife made] and say, "See her? See what she's doing? See how she's living in the same world you are, with the same challenges you have, and see how she succeeds? THAT is how you do this. THAT is what I stand for. I want you to be like HER."

So here are some people who I've seen online (and offline, in Cristina and Karen's case) and I think deserve some recognition.

Cristina Escobar. She's the director of loveisrespect, a partnership between Break the Cycle and the National Domestic Violence Hotline that helps young people identify abuse in relationships and offers a peer-to-peer counseling service via text messaging. She started at the ground floor at Break the Cycle years ago and has risen to a position where she can help thousands of people have productive, safe, loving relationships and protect themselves from abuse.

Monique Frausto. She has developed a strong following online and leverages that prominence to promote the work of other Latinas.  She founded BlogsByLatinas.com, the first aggregator of its kind, and is a writer at Babble.  She also founded the blog Cuves and Chaos, which she describes as "a fashion, beauty, and lifestyle blog for the CURVY (plus size) woman. She is glamorous, fabulous, foxy, confident, and more."  She's a confident and creative community leader.

Karen James.  Karen has been instrumental in leading the #ripplesofdoubt conversation that has helped open people's eyes to the many issues women face when dealing with harassment - but that's not why she's on the list.  Karen is a strong advocate for science outreach and she walks the walk. She's a staff scientist at the Mount Desert Island Biological Library in Maine, and she works to help people understand how what we do to the environment affects everything else.  She also founded a non-profit to help re-build the HMS Beagle - the ship that once carried Charles Darwin aboard - and re-enact its travels with a new generation of scientists. How cool is that?

Kimberly Bryant. She said something I could relate to, at least a bit, about her freshman year - "Fortran and Pascal were the popular languages for newbies in computing and the Apple Macintosh was the new kid on the block."  But while I decided to end my pursuit of a computer science degree, She kept at her studies in engineering - despite the isolation of being the only one there who looked like her.  And now, in addition to a successful career, she founded Black Girls Code - an organization that aims "to increase the number of women of color in the digital space by empowering girls of color ages 7 to 17 to become innovators in STEM fields, leaders in their communities, and builders of their own futures through exposure to computer science and technology."

Evolution of a PR crisis and other observations

The past few days have been tumultuous in the science blogosphere.  I can't do the whole tick-tock but for anyone not up to speed I wrote about the first event here, and the next development here.

In short, Biology-Online has handled their crisis very well, while Scientific American has not done well at all.

In fairness, Biology-Online had the easier task, and apparently fewer lawyers. They had a CEO who just got the information, showed some leadership, and let the right people know about it.  Boom. Over.  Arguably they improved their reputation by demonstrating zero tolerance for inappropriate comments.

Scientific American is a more complex organization, as a former SciAm editor aptly explained. Apparently the lawyers are very powerful there, as they are in many large companies.  But the leadership let their lawyers over-think abstract applications of multi-jurisdictional libel law, paralyze their decision-making process, undercut their executive editor's ability to make the right call, and then take over the company's PR function.

As another smart editor points out, as far as we know no one from Biology-Online or anywhere else ever threatened legal action over this incident.  The chances of anyone filing a lawsuit as a result of Danielle's post were infinitesimal, and the chances of that suit succeeding were even smaller.  As Biology-Online's relatively swift action demonstrated, this was a reasonably simple case of an overmatched dudebro acting like a privileged asshat and a really smart woman calling him out on it.  Bottom line - the post should have never been taken down. It should never have even been considered unless someone made a credible legal threat.  Danielle told nothing but the truth, in the way that only she can. And it was amazing. And Scientific American let her down.  Maryn McKenna's analysis on the actions SciAm did and didn't take has been excellent - and courageous given that she is a contributing editor there.

There are a lot of questions Scientific American hasn't answered.  I believe strongly that the editors at Scientific American want very much for all the ugly details around what happened there to get out in the open so they can learn from it, regain the trust of their readers and their colleagues, and move on.

I believe just as strongly that the lawyers at Scientific American want everyone to stop talking about this as soon as possible.

I'm not trying to diminish the important role lawyers have in organizations. They are often the sentinels of free speech, free thought, and free enterprise.  But shielding a company from some theoretical legal liability is not always the same as defending or preserving your good name. Scientific American's reputation has endured and prospered because of the integrity of its leadership and the quality of its writing, not because of its ability to avoid lawsuits that would never be filed in the first place.

I sincerely hope the editors and lawyers at Scientific American will decide who works for whom and then let the leaders lead. Because while critical stories from people who follow science journalism closely were inevitable, negative pieces from places like ABC News, Fox News, Chronicle of Higher Education, Jezebel, Slate, Business Insider, and International Business Times were not.

THE OTHER SHOE DROPS

This was probably inevitable - though the timing may have been different, had Scientific American done the right thing immediately.

Then something resembling this became necessary, though I have more to say about it in a minute.

And since it did happen, this was inevitable too.

And then this was inevitable and necessary.

And then, of course, this had to happen.

I know Bora and consider him a friend.  What he did was utterly wrong on many levels. I'm not the only one who has told him as much directly.  I think he's continued to make some big mistakes as he realizes the consequences of his actions.  Ultimately, he is responsible for his own choices. So many others have written eloquently about the problems women face in science, in academia, and everywhere else.

Posts from Kathleen Raven, Isis the Scientist, Radium Yttrium, Emily Finke, and Laura Helmuth are among many I found important.  Janet Stemwedel and Kelly Hills have written pieces from an ethicist's perspective that I think are particularly valuable as I look at them through the lens of someone who works in public relations, crisis comms, and issues management.  Karen James has led the #ripplesofdoubt conversation on Twitter.  It has opened eyes and provoked thoughts.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

Some have suggested there was a "firestorm" of commentary on Twitter about this, that people have gone over the top.  I disagree. In my experience as a political/PR guy, I've seen far more fury by many more people over much less substance.  (For example, see "birth certificate, Obama.") Further, this discussion doesn't happen in a vacuum.  Right around the time Andrew Maynard was telling Monica Byrne to think twice before outing Bora, the "Dear Prudence" column over at slate was telling women to stop drinking if they don't want to get raped.  And in the many conversations I've had with people about this, one comment from someone I respect sticks out to me: "At least we haven't seen any rape threats or death threats this time.  That gives me hope."

We've gotten to the point where we see not threatening to rape or kill people who speak out against harassment as a "positive" and not a default setting for basic humanity.

Finally, there's one thing I've noticed that very few people have discussed.  It has to do with that "confession" on Bora's site.  I've written a lot of things in my career that require "legal clearance" in one form or another and that statement reminded me of a lot of them.

Bottom line: I'm not convinced he is the sole or even primary author of the words that appear on his own, personal blog. I'm not convinced he had final approval on what appears there. Of course, he owns those words now, including the since-disproven "singular, regrettable event" regarding behavior that hasn't happened "before or since."

I understand that people represent their companies in their public comments at all times and should conduct themselves professionally.  I know that disclaimers are important things, even if they're not always an iron-clad defense against a threat to a brand's reputation. I try to own my words. But I don't think it's appropriate for a company to force someone to publish something on a personal blog.  It may be a minor issue, given all that has happened, but I'd really like to know if that's what happened here.

Free crisis PR advice for Scientific American online

MEMORANDUM

To:  Mariette DiChristina, Scientific American
From: David Wescott
Re: Censorship on the blog network

SITUATION ANALYSIS

Your online reputation has been significantly damaged by the removal of a post from Dr. Danielle Lee's Urban Scientist blog, the subsequent explanation (and clarification) for the decision, and the resulting discussion.

As you know, Biology-online.org, a member of the Scientific American Partnership Network, solicited Dr. Lee to contribute content on their site without offering financial compensation. When she politely refused, the blog editor there called her an "Urban Whore."  Readers of Biology-online.org have asked questions about this on the site's forum, and an administrator has offered a response, albeit an insufficient one.  Scientific American's response to this situation so far is to remove Dr. Lee's response from her blog.

It does not appear that Dr. Lee was contacted in advance of the decision to censor her post. This is a mistake.  Further, the brief reasoning that has been shared publicly - that the post was not relevant enough to "discovering science" or that it "verged into the personal" - does not withstand even brief scrutiny.

As you know, Dr. Lee's post deals with an issue that is directly relevant to everything that happens at Scientific American online - the actual value publishers place on science communication. The fact that  Dr. Lee draws upon personal experience makes her post more compelling and credible, not less.  Other blog network contributors have already pointed to posts that clearly do not meet the "discovering science" criteria yet remain published. Further, they point to comments from the blog network editor that suggest a "write whatever you want" policy.

This creates a crisis with three specific "audiences." The first audience is internal.  Contributors to the network no longer have clear guidance on criteria or process for publication. The second is an "opinion elite" or audience of those who follow Scientific American closely and can impact its reputation within the scientific community. These peers view censorship as a last resort, and are not convinced of any imminent threat Dr. Lee's post posed to the blog network to merit its immediate removal.  Finally, the public at large is an important audience.

In this regard, the coverage in Buzzfeed is particularly damaging, as it reaches an audience far larger and far more diverse than Scientific American online. This is the audience Scientific American needs to expand its readership and fulfill its mission, but for many of them this story is their introduction to your publication.  They see this as an obvious mistake.  The statement provided to Buzzfeed is passive, vague, and elusive. Further, it puts Scientific American on the wrong side of the discussions about racism and sexism, particularly in science and technology.

As you know, several posts have now emerged criticizing the editors at Scientific American, even some from within the network.  The blog network editor has been uncharacteristically silent.

In the immediate future, you can expect more critical comments from more prominent sources, including organizations that advocate for women and people of color.  You can expect more critical posts from within Scientific American, and possibly even attempts to re-publish Dr. Lee's post verbatim on the network that censored it.  You can expect departures from the blog network. You can expect individuals to look much more closely into the relationship you have with Biology-online.org and the way in which the editors came to their decision to take down the post. You may see a downturn in the number and quality of submissions for your guest blog. Ultimately, you may see a decline in online traffic and ad revenue.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The editors at Scientific American online should republish Dr. Lee's Post and offer an unqualified apology.  Dr. Lee's post does not likely violate any guidelines set out by her editor, and the quality of writing met appropriate standards.  The statement of apology should also recognize the organization's failure to support Dr. Lee when she was treated disrespectfully by an ad network partner. The embarrassment of admitting you were wrong, even now, is far less damaging than the credibility lost by continuing to defend an indefensible position.

The editors should contact Biology-online.org to express their strong disapproval of the way one of their blog contributors was treated, and review the possibility of terminating this partnership.

The editors should draft a communication to blog network members informing them of the apology offered to Dr. Lee and explaining the process by which the editors came to their decision. They should be available to all network members and other relevant parties for a Q&A session.

The editors should work with the contributors to establish a clear set of guidelines, rights, and responsibilities for publication.

The editors should publish an editorial offering a public and unqualified apology, reinforcing the organization's commitment to free speech, and emphasizing the value of their contributors' work.

The editors should work with a third party with expertise in STEM diversity to convene a discussion on how the publication can support this cause more effectively. There are many individuals and organizations with expertise here.  Veronica Arreola is a good start - she has expertise in the topic, and she is well-regarded in online communities that extend far beyond science.

The editors should strengthen partnerships with journalism advocates, business leaders, and centers of entrepreneurship such as the National Association of Business Incubators to explore new ways to underscore the value of science writing and develop more sustainable business models for freelance science writers.  While this is a long-term project with an uncertain future, taking this or a similar effort will demonstrate Scientific American's commitment to its contributors and a more sustainable financial future for all parties.

Free crisis PR advice for Biology-online.org

MEMORANDUM

To: "Ofek" and the leadership of biology-online.org
From: David Wescott
Re: Correspondence with Dr. Danielle Lee

SITUATION ANALYSIS

Your reputation has been badly damaged by the publishing of recent correspondence with biologist Dr. Lee, in which your blog editor suggests her reluctance to provide content to your site without financial compensation makes her an "Urban Whore."

Her response (along with a copy of the correspondence) was initially posted at her Scientific American blog, but now resides on other sites. The correspondence generated significant conversation on twitter among highly influential figures in the science and sci-comm communities, including some who have contributed to biology-online in the past and now wish to have their content removed. It has also led to critical posts on your own site's forum.  As of Friday evening the conversation continues in earnest.

As you may know, Dr. Lee is a very popular and influential member of her community.  Her writing and outreach skills are well-established and celebrated. She is a leading advocate for diversity in STEM and a role model to many.  She also has exceptional communication skills beyond writing, as evidenced by this video of her, speaking extemporaneously, when asked to finish the sentence "Science is..."



Two significant issues compound the immediate reputational damage for your organization.  First, the absence of a public response, specifically an unqualified apology, suggests you either stand by your comments or you are not organized enough to marshall a response and demonstrate accountability. It should go without saying the tone and word choice in the correspondence was unprofessional and wholly inappropriate. The comments go beyond the issue of compensation for legitimate work product and put you on the wrong side of the discussions on sexism and racism.

Second, Biology-online is part of the Scientific American Partnership Network, and prominent readers are now asking if this relationship led to the removal of Dr. Lee's post from her SciAm blog. As you know this form of censorship will not stand with SciAm's readers.  Scientific American's editors will be compelled to comment publicly on why the post was removed, and this situation poses a threat to their reputation as well.

Two other issues threaten your organization's reputation over the medium-term.  First, the correspondence rekindles a common debate in many online communities about appropriate compensation for quality writing.  While many websites ask for (and often receive) content without financial compensation, authors argue it diminishes the overall value of content overall and damages the livelihoods of even the best freelance writers.  This will diminish your reputation among those you solicit most and ultimately render your business model unsustainable.

Second, the site itself does not meet high standards of transparency, nor does it demonstrate best practices in design. The "webmaster" asserts copyright (i.e., ownership) of all content on the site while not disclosing the webmaster's identity.  The "biology online team" do not provide adequate information of their background, roles or responsibilities.  The site employs an outdated design, rudimentary SEO tactics, and free ad banners and forum scripts. Claims of significant web traffic are unverified.  Text written by the webmaster or staff has numerous errors and typos. The site has no social media assets to allow for more direct and public feedback. Taken in sum the site looks like a small operation that spams writers for content, claims ownership of the effort of others, and attempts to profit while investing as little time or resources as possible.

In the absence of quick remedies, Biology-online can expect continued criticism from prominent online voices, fewer quality contributions, less web traffic, and the potential dissolution of its partnership with Scientific American.  Any traffic spike the site gets right now is almost completely attributed to the controversy. Ultimately, this will hasten the site's demise.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Biology-online leadership should offer a public and unqualified apology to Dr. Lee.  The apology should not only acknowledge the inappropriate word choice, but also clearly recognize the cultural and contextual ramifications of those words. Further, the apology should be attached to a full name - not the "biology-online team" or "webmaster."  It is best placed on the Biology-online blog and promoted via social media channels.

Biology-online should also specify what it has done or will do to ensure accountability.  While this does not mean that Ofek should necessarily lose his job, some action is appropriate to reinforce the notion that biology-online truly values the work of its contributors and treats all people with respect and dignity.

Biology-online should reach out to Dr. Lee and others in the community and ask to have a public, candid discussion about the issues facing freelance writers and content creators, specifically addressing the concerns Dr. Lee raises in her response and developing or affirming "best practices."  It would be best if a third party with more credibility on these issues led the discussion, such as the editors at Scientific American.

Biology-online should offer an apology to the editors at Scientific American for endangering their reputation by association.  There is little doubt that the Sci-Am partnership is significant to your site's credibility, and there is value in preserving that partnership.

Finally, Biology-online should conduct its affairs more transparently and redesign its site to reinforce this value. The site should identify its leadership with full names and clear responsibilities.  It should elaborate and clarify its policies on how it seeks content and why it asserts ownership of others' work product.  It should clearly express how it adds value to your readers and contributors.

Here they go again.

What could go wrong?

Just after the presidential election - the one where all the opinion polls consistently showed President Obama winning and wound up being right - I wrote a post about how the Republican Party is suffering from homophily.  When people of the same stripe isolate themselves, and refuse to acknowledge other opinions or even facts that contradict their priorities or world view, they tend to adopt increasingly extreme positions and interpret reality in a way that doesn't reflect reality. That's why conservatives were shocked that they lost the election then, and why they embrace extreme positions like shutting down the government and defaulting on America's debt now. They even say a default won't hurt. (It will.)

It's more than Dick Morris' ridiculous assertion that Governor Romney was "gonna win by a landslide" because all the polls said President Obama would win. All the conservative pundits got it wrong.

But the best example of conservatives heading to oblivion right now is Erick Erickson. Remember Erickson joked that Obama was a lock once Morris made his prediction. But he took a look at the same polls and made his prediction in November:

I believe Mitt Romney will win Florida, Virginia, and Colorado... I honestly change my mind hourly on Ohio, but my best guess is that Romney wins Ohio and consequently wins the Presidency...

If you take a polling average in Ohio, the President is three points ahead. Republicans tend to do two points better in Ohio than the polling and Democrats tend to do one point worse than the polling. That puts Ohio tied and I think passion for Romney makes up that gap...

I’ve never seen the Republican base more fired up.

So Erickson looked at the polls, all saying President Obama was winning in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio, and predicted Romney victories in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio.

Because of passion.

For Governor Romney.

Now Erickson has looked at poll after poll saying the American people know Republicans are to blame for the latest shutdown of the government.  He sees the polls that show significant drops in support for his party.  He sees the guys at Princeton who accurately predicted the last election say if America voted today, Democrats would easily take back the House of Representatives.  And you can guess what he says:

Polling shows more Americans blame the GOP than Barack Obama. I think this means the GOP is winning. You’ll need to let me explain.

No, I really won't.

Shutting the government down doesn't just mean we can't go hiking at Yellowstone this week, as much as that sucks.  It means we aren't inspecting food imports or preventing outbreaks of food-borne illnesses.  We're not researching cancer cures.  We're not paying survivor benefits to those who just lost a loved one in Afghanistan. We're not paying thousands upon thousands of people, public and private sector, who are just trying to do their jobs.

Defaulting on America's debt is more than just telling the rest of the world our word isn't good anymore. It adds the one thing today's global financial system simply cannot withstand - a huge, steaming pile of uncertainty.

If politicians can't agree on an annual budget, a "clean," temporary continuing budget resolution has always been the non-controversial, even perfunctory fix. Essentially it says keep things going until we strike an agreement.  When the government needs to sell bonds to meet its cash obligations, raising our agreed-upon debt limits has also been a non-controversial, even perfunctory fix.  People in both parties have voted against both fixes to make a political statement, but never to actually stop either from happening.  They then get to their real work - a budget resolution and a series of appropriations bills. We've actually made progress on both - under this President, the national budget deficit has shrunk dramatically.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives has now equated a functioning government and a stable global financial system as "unconditional surrender" for his political party.  Seriously - if the economy wins, he thinks he loses.

He really needs to get out more.

Another thought.  Today I think about those people in the job I had over a decade ago - Congressional staffer. The younger ones tend to live paycheck to paycheck, like many Americans. A lot of them are being furloughed right now, dealing with any number of financial issues.  They're looking at the "clean" continuing budget resolution the Senate passed with bipartisan support - the one that would give them job stability for at least a little while.  And they're looking at the news reports that say it would pass the House.

Then they're looking at the one guy who won't let the House vote on it under any circumstances.  For some of them he's the boss.  For others he's the head of their political party.  And now he's saying that their job stability, however temporary, is his "unconditional surrender."

I wonder when some of them will start talking to reporters.

Payback's a bitch, Mr. Speaker.