More Publishers Cut Ties With Sunil Patel

Two more publishers have ended their connections with Sunil Patel in response to  accusations about his conduct toward women aired on Twitter and summarized in the Pixel Scroll for October 16.

Mothership Zeta made a “Staff Announcement” that Patel is no longer associated with the magazine:

Sunil Patel has resigned as Fiction Assistant Editor at Mothership Zeta, effective immediately. We thank him for all his hard work on the magazine’s first six issues.

Steven Saus, who does business as Alliteration, Ink, also made a public statement about how he will be adjusting the fulfillment of backer rewards for a Kickstarter-funded anthology he published that contains a Patel story, No Sh!t, There I Was, edited by Rachael Acks. Acks co-signed the statement, “The Complicated Mess When The Missing Stair Gets Noticed”.

Saus begins,

Me? When I choose not to publish someone because of their behavior, I’m saying that because I don’t want to be associated with sexist, racist, bigoted, assaulting jerks. It’s because I want the areas where I am, that I’m sponsoring, and that I’m representing to be safe and inclusive.

I believe the women who have come forward. I’m all too aware, as Natalie Luhrs put it, “[that] this is a problem that is endemic to our community, social and professional. There are people being abused right now who truly believe that no one will care if they speak up.”

And I do care.

Then he outlines what he will be doing:

I admire the example set by The Book Smugglers, but I can’t exactly follow their example.

The contracts have already been signed, and the money already paid. Review copies have already been sent out. I can’t undo those things. And undoing them would impact not just Mr. Patel, but all the other fine authors who are in No Shit, There I Was.

What I can – and will – do is offer that all backer rewards that involved Mr. Patel may be fulfilled by me personally, or if we can work it out, another author.

I will also investigate how to update future contracts so that should this situation happen again with a different author, I will have more options.

I welcome your feedback about the actions I’m taking. I am not interested in discussing whether or not you believe the accusations.

Meanwhile, Heather A. at Around the World in 80 Books Blog said in “Hot Air: Fall From Grace” they have yanked a Patel interview from their site.

Over the weekend I found out about a problematic person in the SFF community. He seemed like a nice person in real life when we met to do an interview for this blog, but the accusations from women writers in the community left me stunned (the interview has now been removed).

I take their side….

And I just want to emphasize that I want to be here for support of the community and those who may have been victimized by this person. This blog will not be promoting his work in the future.

And Mary Robinette Kowal discussed a complicated situation — “On Being Friends with Someone Who Turns Out to Be an Asshole” — without commenting on anyone by name, in remarks posted October 17:

Sometimes, someone you’re fond of turns out to be an asshole. Holding them accountable is part of being a friend. It helps them be better. I have a colleague/student/friend who has been awful to other people. Not to me, and that isn’t a defense. Ever.

Their behavior is inexcusable.

Defending my asshole friend’s behavior would make me complicit in it, because then I would be condoning the problematic behavior. The question then becomes… do I remain their friend?

Update 10/19/16: Lightspeed announced Patel’s resignation today as well:

49 thoughts on “More Publishers Cut Ties With Sunil Patel

  1. Pingback: Anti-#GamerGate Author, Sunil Patel, Dropped By Publishers Following Abuse Allegations | One Angry Gamer

  2. Thanks for the update Mike. Good to see publishers and others in the business beginning to take this stuff seriously but I have to wonder would everyone be moving so quickly if he were a SWM?

    Frenkel is still invited to conventions and runs an agent business which publishers are willing to work with.

    Benjanun Sriduangkaew has been showing up in a number of anthologies. Not listed in the blurb or on the cover. To find out one needs to use look inside something I don’t always do when I see authors I love on the cover.

    Plenty of SWM who are known harassers and creepers are employed in all aspects of publishing. Are we truly changing or are we using a non-white man as a way to make a statement while continuing business as usual when it’s white people or women?

    Mind you I’m all for the steps being taken. I’d just like to see them consistently taken with harassers and abusers of all genders and colors.

  3. Tasha Turner: Are we truly changing or are we using a non-white man as a way to make a statement while continuing business as usual when it’s white people or women?

    Today N. K. Jemisin retweeted this comment by Justina Ireland:

    At some point, since we’re talking about grooming and gas lighting, we’re going to talk about the toxic white women in YA.

  4. @Tasha: Fair point — even taking on the toxic white women of YA (which I’ve heard stories about and I don’t even follow YA) still means we’re not treating all the abusers equally. Particularly the SWM, since Frenkel and Rene Whosis are still welcome plenty of places.

    Stay tuned, I guess?

  5. @Mike Glyer

    Thanks for the link. I can think of at least one woman editor in SFF anthologies whose part of a problematic crowd.

    @DMS

    I’m not surprised by Lightspeed.

    @Lurkertype

    Staying tuned.

  6. I’m all for the “purging” – where it is earned and justified (no witch trials please) but I do have a question:

    How and when is an offender considered to have “served their time”? What’s the make-up of their probation?

    I’m not addressing any one single case, and I recognize that there are some who have engaged in behaviors that ought to make them permanently persona non grata, but for those who are capable of change – what’s their path back?

    Do we have room for redemption?

    Many of these offenders earn their living from this field. No, they aren’t entitled to continue to do so (no one is), but the down-side to permanent exile is the creation of a group of people who have demonstrated bad behavior previously and now have no reason or incentive to change.

    Yes, it’s a continuum; every case is unique, some (from the outside) are not nearly as egregious as others. Do we lump them all together with the maximum penalty?

    Forgiveness used to at least be an idea in fandom.

  7. Steven, this is kind of what I was getting at when we were discussing the issues of public (or semi-public) lists of names and harassment incidents and responses.

    Once information is public, there’s not really any half-way measures. A reputation, once destroyed, is not easily reassembled.

    That being said, this particular case is not one I find ambiguous. Multiple reports of long-term patterns, and most particularly abuse of authority and editorial responsibility. I certainly hope Patel improves, and I certainly hope he’s treated with compassion. But I’d be very, very concerned about granting him similar authority in the future.

    To be honest, I don’t quite see why in that discussion your position was that documenting concrete events is harmless, or that the responsibility for judgement is on individual actors, but here your concern is for long-term consequences and forgiveness. I can see both sides, but they do feel somewhat contradictory.

  8. @Steve Davidson

    I think that a big part of redemption is showing a person knows what they did is wrong and showing they won’t do it again. It’s not just someone having suffered for a suitable length of time, if they’re willing to do it again. Also showing you understand why it wasn’t just “people being sensitive”, “a bit of harmless fun”, or “the pc police.” I don’t think we’re yet at the point where we have a problem of people who’ve made those steps still being shunned; I think we’re at the point where having enough friends means an offender doesn’t have to even try and still have people saying what a good guy they are. See, oh, the Worldcon mess two weeks ago.

  9. TYP – I wasn’t trying to suggest anything, nor do I think “time in the barrel” is enough; absolutely, contrition, demonstration of change, admitting the wrong, understanding why it was wrong, are all prerequisites.

    What I’m asking is “how” do they go about doing those things and “when” are they allowed back around the campfire, even on a probationary basis?

  10. follow-on: while it may never be acceptable to those attacked, threatened, etc (understandably so), if a “change of behavior” is evidenced, how do we all go about learning about that? does the guilty party siply say something on their blog? do they have to have a presentation at a con?

    am not being flip. if we are going to accept some of these people back, they and we need to know how that’s done, what’s genrally acceptable, etc

  11. I think that a big part of redemption is showing a person knows what they did is wrong and showing they won’t do it again.

    The problem is that it’s hard to show this to people who shun you completely. Unless there is some level of contact between the (past) offender and the rest of society, the rest of society will never know whether the person have improved or not.

    Another problem is that there currently tends to have a polarization between people who will defend their friends without question (or in some cases specifically defend the problematic behaviour), and people who drop all contact with someone who is accused of wrongdoing. This leaves the offender surrounded by people who think he’s done nothing wrong. That’s probably not a good starting point for improvement.

    This points towards the following answer to MRK’s dilemma: Try to remain a friend, but don’t defend his behaviour – not to him, and not to others. If possible, offer help and advice for improvement. Be sceptical of improvement (after all, you didn’t spot the problems the first time around) but if you are certain of them, try to be a “bridge” back to the rest of society.

  12. Steve Davidson:

    Answers are easy: It is up to each existing company to decide if they want to hire a person again. And there is nothing such as a way back. It is a way forward. It might be for the same kind of positions, but it might also be to something totally different.

    This is a thing that will be decided on individual basis. There is no “we”. I will make my decision. Others will make theirs. Perhaps they will be the same. Perhaps not.

  13. Johan P.

    I agree.

    Have a friend who was clueless about police procedure and almost got us both shot during a traffic stop by exiting the car against the officer’s orders. I was mighty pissed at him, but being friends, I just did my best to explain things and noted to myself to make sure, if we were ever stopped again, that I instructed him on what to do (as well as whatever the cops might say).

    Not entirely analogous, but we have all been there when friends behave badly in situations that impact us.

    I see three scenarios (as I expect that for the next several years, more and more folks are going to be (justifiably) taken to task for bad behavior. (Many people are still or will never learn that the norms are changing)

    1. shunned individuals are permanently exiled. Inevitably, a small percentage will be based on unjustifiable accusations. Inevitably, some in this group will make it their life’s work to seek “revenge”./
    2. shunned individuals are given a nebulous to redemption – whatever that may be (wear a clown nose to the next three cons so everyone knows who you are…). Some will take it; others will double down and will make it their life’s work to seek “revenge”.
    3. shunned individuals are given a specific set if requirements that must be met before they are allowed to go on “probation”; (probation may be life time). Some will take it, others will double down and will make it their life’s work to seek “revenge” (though fewer, I expect, than in #2).

    Harmed individuals may very well find neither 2 or 3 acceptable and may see either as continued enabling of their victimization – which is why the “path” should offer the opportunity for reconciliation.

    There’s no “clean” answer and I default in favor of victims, but at least here in the US we pay lip service to the idea that one can pay their debt to society and then re-enter. I’m mostly thinking of the borderline cases where yes, something did happen, but its a confused situation and one not necessarily deliberate with “malice aforethought” – an escalating misunderstanding, understanding but from different frames of reference, etc. – a situation where one has to admit to bad behavior but that’s out of the norm for the individual, circumstantial, etc. If there’s no chance to re-set, there’s little incentive for the accused to confess, or even try to change, and in the meantime, doing the right thing creates a class of people who have incentive to continue bad behavior.

  14. steve davidson: I think we can see from real life experience what happens even in the “best case.”

    Consider someone who is an alcoholic, did damage to his family, maybe lost his job, etc. He gets into AA, gets sober, and works the 12 steps. Now he’s stabilized his life and has a structure that may keep him from drinking and having problems.

    The person has changed — but his history is still the same. The change doesn’t mean that people who were affected by his past drunken behavior will want to forgive him, are healed of their own wounding.

    So how can any process between third parties presume to tell the wounded to accept the person, that he has earned his way back into their social setting?

  15. Steve Davidson:

    Good points all. I think though, that given the status quo we allow to exist in plain sight, the people who actually can de-toxify their behavior will do surprisingly well. They will have the example of the behavior of the ones who don’t, or the low-level hum of awfulness, to compare themselves against, and the one’s who’ve changed will be quite, quite obvious when held up against that background.

  16. @Steve Davidson – this will be a long response

    Redemption is a very tough path. As Mike Glyer mentions AA (and similar programs) is one way an alcoholic (addict) makes real change. They may or may not find themselves welcomed back by family and friends they harmed during their drinking/drugging/abusive years.

    The reason to change is future people won’t find you an abusive ass. New people who don’t know your past will give you a chance. Most people, even abusers, don’t want to be seen as abusers. Yes they deliberately do abusive things but they don’t think of themselves as bad people. While there aren’t set and direct paths for redemption and welcoming back into the community the reality is forgiveness at an institutional level happens as well as at personal levels. Everyone’s journey will be different.

    Looking over your examples:

    1. Seriously if being unjustly accused leads one to planning revenge instead of moving on with their life I suggest therapy and the possibility of a deeper problem and it probably wasn’t unjustly in my experience.

    2. Double-down for revenge shows one should be kept out forever because clearly one is unwilling to consider other people. I don’t understand these “redemption and welcome back plans” . If you are a full-time employer paying for health insurance you could cover the cost of various therapy methods to teach about consent, proper management, how to treat people, how NOT to harass, and basic cognitive therapy… I’m not sure how you measure improvement (lack of behaving like a predator) or report back to the community at large… Maybe you have some useful suggestions other then but what about the abusers?

    3. Could you come up with some redemption and welcome back plans for longtime repeat abusers given all your years of management experience? One’s which don’t put employees, authors, others working with harasser, or your company at risk, where you could measure the abusers improvement towards treating others less like prey and more like full human beings? One which would be hard to game? Which wouldn’t force the abused to have contact with the abusing predator?

    I do hate when SWM are always quick to worry about when are we going to let the abusers back while showing little sympathy/empathy for all the people abused. It makes me very angry every conversation about abuse has some SWM asking this question before truly expressing sympathy and empathy and understanding about why abusers need to be kept out of the community so they don’t hurt more people. *see steam coming out of my ears and my eyes glowing red*

  17. Hampus Eckerman: It is up to each existing company to decide if they want to hire a person again. And there is nothing such as a way back. It is a way forward. It might be for the same kind of positions, but it might also be to something totally different.

    This is a thing that will be decided on individual basis. There is no “we”. I will make my decision. Others will make theirs. Perhaps they will be the same. Perhaps not.

    I’m just repeating your comment here, because it is so perfectly worded.

     
    Steve, you seem to think that everyone needs to be willing to agree upon conditions for someone being forgiven and “let back in”. Sorry, but no.

    There are consequences for bad behavior — and those consequences may include a lot of people never being willing to trust the offender again. That is too damn bad. The offender should have thought about that before they engaged in the bad behavior. Once the damage to the victims has been done, it cannot be magically undone. And it is not the responsibility of the rest of fandom to have to forgive the perpetrator or allow them back in.

    Sure, if the offender really does feel remorse, and they really do change, that’s great. But it does not erase what they did, and it does not put an obligation on anyone else to forgive them or give them their old status and privileges back.

     
    “Redemption” is not achieved by getting back your previous status and privileges. It is achieved by recognizing that what you did was wrong, and changing your ways. And it’s not up to anyone else to give you “incentives” to do this. If becoming a better person is not enough of an “incentive” to change, that is your problem as a perpetrator, and not the responsibility of anyone else.

  18. @steve davidson – How and when is an offender considered to have “served their time”? What’s the make-up of their probation?

    I’m not addressing any one single case, and I recognize that there are some who have engaged in behaviors that ought to make them permanently persona non grata, but for those who are capable of change – what’s their path back?

    Do we have room for redemption?

    I think you’re confusing someone’s personal journey to redemption, which does not depend on forgiveness from others, with social rehabilitation. Mike Glyer’s example of an alcoholic who does all their steps and continues to refrain from drinking is a good illustration of the difference between the two. The alcoholic cannot erase the past and any harm they might have done because there is no reset button, and anyone who was there for the drinking isn’t going to forget that past.

    Anyone there for whatever abuse got someone turfed from their gig isn’t going to forget that. It’s part of that person’s history, whatever they do to eliminate those predatory behaviors, because there’s no reset button for the past.

    So, what’s the path to social rehabilitation? Start by not doing what you did. Keep not doing it. Own your shit when someone says you deserve to be a pariah. Own your shit when someone tries to minimize what you did. Know that some people, because they know you’re a good person or have short memories or because they don’t care much about others or because they’re temperamentally inclined that way, will forgive you immediately and think a simple apology erases everything. Know that others will never forget or forgive.

    Most people, if you keep not doing what you did and if you didn’t do it to them or to someone they know, will eventually treat you as if you’ve hit a reset button.

    Just…don’t do it again, or anything like it, because as a former abuser, you’ve used up some percentage of your lifetime’s supply of social capital with some large percentage of people and there’s no getting it back.

  19. Steve Davidson said:

    “There’s no “clean” answer and I default in favor of victims, but at least here in the US we pay lip service to the idea that one can pay their debt to society and then re-enter.”

    And if this was a conversation about prison time, that would be true. But it’s not. It’s a conversation about whether this person has a place in the SFF community. And frankly, given the number of people who would be harmed simply by knowing that their abuser was forgiven and allowed to regain a role in that community, I think that it’s understandable that the answer to that question may well be “no, not ever.”

    Think of it this way. If you are a domestic abuser, and you go to jail, there is a point where you can “pay your debt to society and re-enter”. But there is a big difference between being allowed to get out of jail and being allowed to go back and live in that same house again.

  20. Would just like to commend Hampus, JJ, Cheryl S, John Seavey, and OGH for their comments above.

  21. What did Sunil Patel actually do? I’ve heard a lot told, but nothing actually shown other than tweets that only tell themselves.

  22. I’ve heard a lot told, but nothing actually shown

    Wait. What do you need shown?

    I’m trying to parse this generously, but it sounds a lot “I’ve been told, but I haven’t been shown evidence.

    Maybe that was just an unfortunate turn of phrase, and what you meant was, “I’ve seen lot of vague chatter but few specifics”?

  23. That’s pretty much it. It’s like being told someone is guilty of breaking and entering but not being shown where said act took place. Vague accusations followed up by a vague apology isn’t much to go on.

  24. David W.: That’s pretty much it. It’s like being told someone is guilty of breaking and entering but not being shown where said act took place. Vague accusations followed up by a vague apology isn’t much to go on.

    I’m mystified as to why you think you should have anything “to go on”. You’re not in a position to take action on anything, and your opinion has not been sought by the people involved.

  25. JJ, given the actions taken with regard to the assertions made against Patel affect the readers of those publications that dumped him, it’s not unreasonable to want a more detailed explanation about why they did it, in fairness to their readership.

  26. David W., Patel has been accused of inappropriate behavior. He has not denied the accusation; indeed, his apology could reasonably be taken as an admission of guilt. He has then been fired by those who know his behavior and are in a position to sanction him. He has not, to my knowledge, protested this consequence for his actions.

    Other than to satisfy prurient curiously, I’m wondering why you need to know more. Are you in a position where you might be harmed by his future actions, or are you perhaps a publisher deciding whether or not to hire him?

  27. David W.: given the actions taken with regard to the assertions made against Patel affect the readers of those publications that dumped him, it’s not unreasonable to want a more detailed explanation about why they did it, in fairness to their readership.

    Yes, it is unreasonable. “fairness to the readership” <– hey, that’s a good one. Nice try. But how they run their business is — surprise! — not your business unless they choose to make it so.

    If they wanted their “readership” (aka people who feel that they need to know everybody else’s business) to know more, they would have said more. They didn’t. Ergo, you don’t need to know, and they don’t need your opinion on it.

  28. @David W. – it’s not unreasonable to want a more detailed explanation about why they did it, in fairness to their readership.

    Well, yes, it is. Unless you think reading something somehow conveys managerial oversight. Which, no, it doesn’t. Yes, of course you can decide not to read an author or a publication and the reason doesnt have to make a lick of sense, but you’re not actually entitled to an explanation of anyone’s decision.

    Playing the fairness card doesn’t change that.

  29. Cassy B, when the only thing one knows about someone is that they engaged in “inappropriate behavior”, that’s not much to go on with respect to whether or not the actions taken were fair or not. Personally, I think firing someone is a serious action, and one that ought to be seriously justified, regardless of Patel’s own vague apology and silence about the matter.

    Given that Patel is someone who presumably will remain active in SF&F publishing and fandom, it would be good to know more. Otherwise, all anyone has to go on going forward are vague accusations.

  30. David W.: when the only thing one knows about someone is that they engaged in “inappropriate behavior”, that’s not much to go on with respect to whether or not the actions taken were fair or not.

    You still don’t get it. No one cares whether you think their actions were “fair”. You’re not involved, and what you think here is irrelevant.

  31. All of which you can take into account if you meet Patel at a Con, or want to publish him. But nobody else owes anyone an explanation for their hiring and firing practices.

    Or are you somehow afraid that someone somewhere will vaguely accuse you and it will end your career?

    It doesn’t work like that. Patel, again, has owned his behaviour, which is a few steps beyond being accused. The people who need to know more know it.

  32. JJ, it’s not a matter of entitlement about wanting to know more about what is a public affair. No one’s required to answer anything, but no one needs to be satisfied with that either.

  33. Well JJ, you’re free to ignore me if you think I’m irrelevant. No skin off my nose.

  34. It doesn’t work like that. Patel, again, has owned his behaviour, which is a few steps beyond being accused. The people who need to know more know it.

    Owned what, though? The only detail about this matter I’ve come across is something called “The List”, but what that actually is, is left undefined.

    Saying that only the people who need to know more about it know it doesn’t provide anyone else with any information about what to do with respect to the accused going forward. Should another convention ban him or not? If so, what’s the justification?

  35. David W.: you’re free to ignore me if you think I’m irrelevant.

    That’s not what I said, is it? I said “what you think here is irrelevant”.

    David W.: Saying that only the people who need to know more about it know it doesn’t provide anyone else with any information about what to do with respect to the accused going forward. Should another convention ban him or not? If so, what’s the justification?

    Are you a con chair? In any sort of position to hire Patel, or to place him in a position of power or influence, or to remove him from one?

    No? Then why don’t you let the people who are in those positions figure out what, if anything, they need to do?

    You say:
    No one’s required to answer anything, but no one needs to be satisfied with that either.

    No, no one’s required to answer anything. And you can be dissatisfied all you want, but repeated demands for more information just make you look like a Nosey Parker with an unjustified sense of entitlement.

  36. Are you a con chair? In any sort of position to hire Patel, or to place him in a position of power or influence, or to remove him from one?

    Don’t you think any con chair wouldn’t want to know what happened in order to make a good decision about Patel? It’s not just about any one person’s desire to know. As I recall, a few days about there was a lot of discussion about maintaining some kind of record about problematic fans for cons, and presumably accurate information would be needed for such a thing.

  37. He has then been fired by those who know his behavior and are in a position to sanction him.

    I believe he resigned from everything that could be described as a job (Mothership Zeta, Lightspeed reviewer) and has had his business product dropped by several sites who were displaying it, so fired isn’t the right term.
    (Possibly picky of me, but there is some merit in acknowledging that you need to jump rather being pushed, so he at least ought to have that credited to him)

    @David W

    I think there were some fuller details shared on twitter, but they are probably too tricky to re-find in the chaos of 140 chars. I suspect that the people who need to know are either already informed or know who to ask. There are issues with this sort of thing being confined to a grapevine that doesn’t always spread to everyone who needs to know, but I don’t think this is one of those cases.

  38. David W.: Don’t you think any con chair wouldn’t want to know what happened in order to make a good decision about Patel?

    They might, if they’re making a decision about whether to have him as a GoH or a panelist. In which case, they have ways of getting more information in order to make an informed decision. But again, you are not them. You do not have a need to know.

    But how generous of you to insist on trying to get it for them. That’s really selfless of you. 🙄

  39. Oh, just make up your own story that justifies Patel’s treatment. That’s what I do in cases like this. On even-numbered days, I assume he’s a total shit who got what was coming to him. On odd-numbered days, I assume he innocently trod on someone’s wrong side and got a thorough reputation-trashing. Who knows? Who cares?

  40. JJ: But how generous of you to insist on trying to get it for them.

    Just in case we have any over eager helpers listening in — I don’t want to host the details. (Although I don’t really think people who know them want to post them here, either.)

  41. David W. asked:

    What did Sunil Patel actually do? I’ve heard a lot told, but nothing actually shown other than tweets that only tell themselves.

    Serially harassed women for years.

    If this series of tweets is what you mean by “tweets that only tell themselves”, then you’ve got about as much info as anyone else outside the YA author community. Presumably his editors have consulted their contacts in the community; presumably a con chair would do the same.

  42. In which case, they have ways of getting more information in order to make an informed decision.

    “They have ways”? Well, they can talk to each other certainly, but about what? Not much in this particular case. I think you’re assuming SMOFs have ways of knowing things that they actually don’t have.

  43. David W.: “They have ways”? Well, they can talk to each other certainly, but about what? Not much in this particular case. I think you’re assuming SMOFs have ways of knowing things that they actually don’t have.

    No, I’m assuming that SMOFs are bright enough to know how to obtain more information when they have a need to know it. Oh, FFS — I’m not a SMOF, and I can think of at least 5 ways right now to obtain more information on this, if I had a genuine reason to need it.

    But I don’t, so I won’t.

  44. I’m not a SMOF, and I can think of at least 5 ways right now to obtain more information on this

    Well, you could do more than just think about them. Why not share?

  45. Pingback: Pixel Scroll 2/12/17 Who Knows What Pixels Lurk In The Heart Of Scrolls? | File 770

Comments are closed.