[This is the third update in a series which includes Courtney Milan Suspended by RWA, Banned from Leadership and Courtney Milan Controversy Decimates RWA Leadership.]
Romance Writers of America’s remaining leadership and staff, under heavy criticism from members, today issued another statement in an attempt to retrieve the situation.
Meanwhile, incoming RWA President Damon Suede is the subject of a recall petition.
And top romance author Nora Roberts, who dropped out of RWA several years ago, reminded people why she left, but also apologized for (as a result) not being aware of the problems now surfacing:
Nora Roberts posted “MY POV on RWA” on December 29.
… Writer, the middle word in Romance Writers of America, is a word without gender, a word without color or race, a word without sexual orientation, without creed. We’re writers, and as such must expect to be treated, must demand to be treated, fairly and equitably by our professional organization.
…Again, I regret all the years I didn’t hear, didn’t see, didn’t listen, remained unaware of all the sad and unfair things that are now coming to light.
I hope that light continues to shine, and by doing so may change RWA for the good, may remind those in leadership positions what the purpose was all those years ago. To support and advocate for romance writers. Not specific kinds of romance writers.
Let me add, as a personal note, that over the course of my life, the course of my career, the couple hundred books I’ve written, I may have–most likely have–said or done or written something that was offensive, racist, homophobic. Without intent–but intent doesn’t mean a damn to those hurt. So I’ll apologize without qualification.
I hope I’ve learned along the way. I intend to continue to learn and do better.
RESOURCES. Links to new developments are continually added at these two sites:
- “Romance Sparks Joy Special Report – RWA Story” on Twitter is a compilation of relevant tweets in chronological order.
- Claire Ryan maintains and updates a timeline of developments here: “The Implosion of the RWA”.
DISCUSSION. Lynn Spencer’s post “Has RWA Lost Its Way?” at All About Romance is followed by a wide-open comments section with opinions from all sides of the issue. Spencer says in conclusion:
It’s obvious at this point that RWA screwed up. Frankly, as more information becomes available, it appears obvious that they made more than just one mistake. Their internal procedures are clearly flawed and while Courtney Milan is an author with a high enough profile to draw attention to the problems, one can only imagine how many people who are not so well-known may have been treated equally poorly by the organization. Story after story after story of alleged irregularities and bias at RWA(some going back to the early days of the organization) have been pouring out ever since this particular story broke and I can only imagine that will continue.
So, where does RWA go from here? Over the short term, I honestly think that the organization has broken trust with too many people. This isn’t a situation where they can apologize and hope we will all forget about it. Perhaps if they:
(1) clean house and start over by electing a brand new board who would then hire a new executive director;
(2) audit what has been happening not just with the complaints against Courtney Milan but with the ethics committee in general and make those findings publicly available, including the names of everyone on the shadow ethics committee, and
(3) show by their actions that RWA is willing to listen and to really do the work of becoming more diverse, inclusive and anti-racist, then over the long term they may survive.
However, RWA has damaged its reputation with a significant portion of its membership and with the romance community at large, and one can understand those of us who will be slow to risk trusting it again. There are lots of questions to be answered here, and from what is already known, it is apparent that once those questions are answered, the organization will have to change if it is to survive.
OTHER COMMENTARIES.
Ilona Andrews charts what she thinks is the underlying cause of the conflict. Thread starts here.
Ivy Quinn assembled a thread of screencaps of comments left on RWA’s Facebook page. The thread starts here.
Diana Hicks described her experience with racism in the RWA. Thread starts here.
Former RWA President HelenKay Dimon a few days ago tweeted a series of steps that, if taken, might let the organization move forward. Thread starts here.
RWA PRESIDENT DAMON SUEDE. He got his message out to RWA Chapter Leaders, but what he’s telling them has been challenged by Courtney Milan and others. An effort to remove him from office is under way.
Alyssa Day tweeted screencaps of RWA President Damon Suede’s message to RWA Chapter Leaders.
Courtney Milan contradicted some of what Suede wrote in a thread that starts here.
CIMRWA (Cultural, Interracial, and Multicultural Chapter of Romance Writers of America) is ready to submit its petition to recall incoming RWA President Damon Suede.
RWA has been caught swapping out its December 26 and December 30 statements at the top of the organization’s webpage.
The distilled essence of Tessa Dare’s take is –
REACTION FROM THE SFF COMMUNITY.
N.K. Jemisin contrasted how SFWA and RWA handled the challenge of racism. Thead starts here.
Mad Genius Club’s Sarah A. Hoyt and Dave Freer posted word salads disapproving the motives and purposes they imputed to Courtney Milan.
Meanwhile, Chuck Tingle is still pissed off at RWA President Suede for saying, in effect, that he is a pen name of two collaborators.
NEW RWA STATEMENT. On December 30 RWA leadership and staff emailed a Google Docs link to this statement (and also posted it on the RWA website).
December 30, 2019
The purpose of the Romance Writers of America (RWA) is to support, advocate, and provide resources for approximately 9,000 romance writers, advocate for the genre, and provide a safe and respectful environment for writers to discuss and express their ideas.
We do not take positions for or against specific literary criticism or authors’ points of view. We do, however, have explicit policy for our members’ professional conduct. RWA’s Member Code of Ethics is designed to induce RWA members, especially RWA’s leaders, to exhibit integrity, honesty, and other good professional practices, thereby enhancing the romance writing profession.
RWA is fully committed to the confidentiality and integrity of the ethics process at all levels. Our Code of Ethics and procedures cannot be selectively or inconsistently applied on a situational basis. All ethics complaints received must be properly reviewed and addressed according to our policy manual, and the organization must apply a single standard consistently and equitably.
Beginning in August of 2019 and subsequently, the RWA Ethics Committee received complaints filed by two members, Suzan Tisdale and Kathryn Lynn Davis, against former Board member Courtney Milan. These complaints allege several violations of the RWA Member Code of Ethics by Ms. Milan while she was serving in an RWA leadership position and that this led to the loss of a three-book contract by Ms. Davis.
At the time of the complaint, Ms. Milan served as Chair of the Ethics Committee and was now subject to review by the Committee for allegations by the aforementioned RWA members. Ms. Milan was asked to voluntarily step down as the Ethics Committee Chair to eliminate any conflict of interest, which she did, and the Board appointed additional Committee members and a new Chair. Those members made up a diverse Ethics panel – the standard RWA protocol in RWA Ethics cases – that had not served under Ms. Milan because of the need for confidentiality and the potential for conflicts of interest.
In accordance with RWA policy, the Ethics panel met and delivered its report to the Board, dismissing all charges against Ms. Milan except one: a violation of the association’s express purpose of creating a “safe and respectful environment” for its community of writers.
While the Ethics panel unanimously recommended a series of sanctions against Ms. Milan, the Board chose to reduce these to a one-year suspension and a permanent ban on leadership positions in RWA. After this private information was made public on December 23, it led to an intense backlash online – including the spreading of false information, threats, and personal information. The Board then held an emergency executive session, rescinding the remaining sanctions. That is where things stand and where they will remain unless a future Board decides to revisit the issues. Several Board members have subsequently resigned for a variety of reasons.
RWA is not alone in trying to balance free speech with civil discourse and the damage – personal and financial – its absence can do. It is, however, up to us to find a pathway forward to meet the competing needs of free expression without subjecting our members to harassment, intimidation, and financial loss.
To provide a path forward, we are taking or have taken the following actions:
- In an abundance of caution over confusion regarding RWA’s policies and procedures, the complaint against Courtney Milan has been closed and no action is being taken at this time. Ms. Milan remains a member of RWA.
- RWA affirms our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. We are in the process of recruiting and nominating strong, diverse candidates for the vacant Board seats to foster a Board culture rooted in transparency and accountability; all candidates are subject to Board approval.
- RWA will authorize a full, complete, and transparent review of the Member Code of Ethics and enforcement procedures.
- RWA is hiring an independent, outside law firm to conduct an audit of the process and these events to provide a clear report of the facts.
Our members have strong opinions, which we applaud. But when expressed inappropriately, and in some cases far worse, by our organizational leadership – past and present – these can result in personal and financial harm to members. Other members have inappropriately shared personal and/or private information which has legal consequences and has resulted in members feeling threatened, exposed, and unsafe. This is unacceptable behavior. As writers we know more than most, words have consequences.
The Board and staff remain committed to serving our members and fulfilling our mission. We can and will do better. RWA is not alone in these challenges, but as writers, we must lead the way.
Sincerely, RWA Board and Staff
Courtney Milan tweeted two threads reacting to the statement.
- The second starts here.
Esi Sogah deconstructed the statement in a thread that starts here.
Former RWA President HelenKay Dimon commented:
N.K. Jemisin also put up a thread about the latest RWA statement:
MAINSTREAM PRESS. The media are covering the RWA story. Some outlets are running the AP article, others have had reporters contacting the principals, or a local RWA member.
Associated Press – December 27.
“Controversy hits Romance Writers of America this holiday”
There’s not a lot of love at the Romance Writers of America this holiday season. Lots of passion, but not too much love.
The organization, which bills itself as the voice of romance writers and cites 9,000 members, has been upended over the way it has treated one of its authors, Courtney Milan, a Chinese American writer and a former chair of its Ethics Committee.
The Texas-based trade association initially accepted the vote of its Ethics Committee that Milan had violated the group’s code with negative online comments about other writers and their work. Then, just before Christmas, it reversed course, rescinding its vote ”pending a legal opinion.” Now its entire leadership has changed….
Houston Chronicle – December 29.
“Houston-based Romance Writers of America sees board exodus after racism allegations
Nine board members of the Houston-based Romance Writers of America resigned this week in a startling exodus that took place during a holiday lull. The organization — which represents a billion-dollar industry and celebrates its 40th anniversary in 2020 — will enter the new year with decimated leadership and lingering questions about its focus and future after several romance authors questioned the association’s commitment to a diverse community.
“I knew this kind of thing could happen, but I certainly didn’t see it happening this way, over Christmas week,” said author Piper Huguley. “I knew there was a big push coming, a resistance against this. I believe we’re in a fight for the soul of this organization, which to a number of people who observe it is not unlike what’s going on in the country politically. Right now the big question is, ‘What’s going to happen?’”…
New York Times – December 30.
“Racism Dispute Roils Romance Writers Group”
…Ms. Milan, who is Chinese-American, took issue with the depiction of 19th-century Chinese women in the book, including a description of “slanted almond eyes” and a quote from a character describing them as “demure and quiet, as our mothers have trained us to be.” “The notion of the submissive Chinese woman is a racist stereotype which fuels higher rates of violence against women,” Ms. Milan wrote on Twitter.
Ms. Davis, who is an honorary R.W.A. member, disagreed with Ms. Milan’s assessment, saying her book was historically accurate and based on years of research. She filed an ethics complaint with the R.W.A., saying that Ms. Milan’s comments were “cyberbullying” and cost her a publishing contract.
…Ms. Davis, who filed one of the complaints, said she was “stunned” by the R.W.A.’s judgment against Ms. Milan and said the penalty “far exceeded the substance of the complaint.” “We asked for an apology. That was what we wanted,” she said.
HelenKay Dimon, who was president of R.W.A. until her term ended in late August, said that she thought there had been a series of breakdowns in the process and is calling for a full audit.
“People care enough to get that upset,” she said. Now, the organization needs to “step up and take responsibility and have a plan.”
“I think the organization and the membership and the people who drove this decision are not the same things,” Ms. Milan said. “The response of the membership should be heartening to anyone who cares about diversity in R.W.A. and romance.”
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Thanks for the summary. I’ve been trying to keep track but the twists and revelations keep coming.
I’m past the stage when I’m out of words. Now it is like all words ever said about a kerfuffle will fit into this. Dumpster fires, hole digging, foot shooting…
This is the sort of thing that if you call it “trash fire” gives burning refuse a bad name.
:Mad Genius Club’s Sarah A. Hoyt and Dave Freer posted word salads disapproving the motives and purposes they imputed to Courtney Milan.”
Of COURSE they did.:sigh:
CupidStalk (the RWA version of Godstalk?)
They keep digging.
I notice this in particular from Suzan Tisdale’s complaint:
“If the board does not demand that Ms. Milan immediately cease and desist with this online bullying, with the hateful tweets against me, my company, my authors, and acquisition editors, I will not remain quiet and I will move forward with legal action.”
It looks to me like she realized that she didn’t have a chance of winning against Courtney Milan in court (due to the First Amendment,) so instead filed complaint against Milan’s professional association in the hopes that she could force a particular outcome. This was clearly a mistake, and it’s obvious that the RWA badly misjudged the question of who could bring the highest level of force to bear. Given the way the RWA violated it’s own rules, at this point Milan has a far better chance of winning in court than Tisdale!
Meanwhile, what are the chances that any author who cares about either racial issues or their own reputation will sign a contract with Tisdale’s publishing company?
But the RWA keeps digging!
Those screencaps from Ivy Quinn…good lord. Talk about crashing your career in one fell swoop. 🤦
This is a hugely big and consequential deal and like the previous controversies in SFF world, the riots go deep and the f***ery far beyond this incident that has catalyze a shocking amount of really terrible revelations about bad behavior. I’ve been an intermittent romance reader and in the last year or two picked it up again (partially due to increasing need for full escapism due to horrifying real world, partially because I’m LOVING discovering the many new authors and new facets of the genre—the very thing Ilona Andrews points out that the old guard is fighting).
I digress. What I actually wanted to say is THANK YOU Mike for covering this seriously and attentively and following and distilling the crazy twists and turns. Even though romance drives much of the publishing and bookselling engine, it’s always treated as the red headed stepchild often even among the other genres. It would have been easy to treat it snarkily or dismissively or ignore all together as completely outside the purview of this site. But it really does matter and there’s a lot more going on than one possibly antiquated organization self destructing.
I’ve been following everything on Twitter as it’s developed so I know that keeping track is a huge time suck and I admire the hell out of Mike for not just doing it but doing a bang up job of covering the far ranging offshoots and implications.
If this site allowed gifs this is where I’d post the “Meryl Streep leads very enthusiastic ovation” one because that’s how I feel.
Happy New Year to Mike and all of you. One of my goals for 2020 is to do a lot more reading and a lot more interacting here because I genuinely love this site.
While following this mess on Twitter, I read some by Tasha Suri – a reminder that the fields overlap.
@PJ et al —
They certainly do. Heck, just look at the oeuvre of our most recent SF Grand Master. Anyone here think Bujold doesn’t write romance every now and then?
Bujold’s “Winterfair Gifts” was first published in a collection (Irresistible Forces) explicitly designed to introduce SF fans to romance and vice versa
From a Scandinavian perspective, Norwegian Margit Sandemo is a force of nature. Her fantasy romance series The Legend of The Ice People, spanning over 400 years in 47 parts, has sold around 40 million books. That series is for Scandinavians discovering sex what Clan of the Cavebear is for Anglo-Saxians.
Should read more by her, some of them are really good. The first two are fantastic.
I think I saw a link to Debbie Reese’s tweets reading Davis’ duology involving a Salish female character set in the 1970s. Reese just posted a blog entry building on those tweets, with commentary on the RWA imbroglio (and discussing how the attempts to create diversity in the Children’s Literature Association are running into the same sorts of blocks that occurred in the RWA). This link is to a pretty damning analysis of the racist stereotypes in the duology (which, like the novel Milan criticized) was reissued in 2010 as an e-book, so it’s not decades old.
The Guardian story on this mess was the tenth most read story on the Guardian site this afternoon. (Though I’m never sure whether the list is tailored to US readers, or truly measures total readership.)
The RWA has appointed new board members.
https://twitter.com/RomancingNope/status/1212121852371521536
https://www.rwa.org/Online/About_RWA/Board_of_Directors/Online/About/Board.aspx
This is not getting resolved any time soon is it?
@Soon Lee
I read that entire thread from RomancingNope – it’s very much worth the time.
What a mess!
Further WTFery: Romance author Melissa Blue, irked at the RWA’s Board’s sanctioning decision, on Dec. 24th wrote them a letter saying she regrets having just entered the RITA Award contest (given the then-recent Milan decision), and that if it’s not allowed to criticise racism from fellow RWA members, then she needs to be disqualified from RITA consideration, because she intends to continue doing so, including on social media.
Then-President Carolyn Jewel sent (same day) an individualised response reassuring Melissa Blue that social media commentary is excluded from Ethics Code scrutiny, and that:
So, the new[ish] story became (paraphrased): ‘Oh, did we forget to mention? There were also secret deliberations on matters Ms. Milan was not informed about (against our policy), that formed the secret basis of our Board decision, and was silently excluded from the official record. But trust us.’
President Jewel went on:
I could swear that the Dec.11th Ethics Committee report (which refers only to social media posts as its basis) and the statement to Ms. Milan of the Dec. 17th Board approval vote actually said the opposite. (The latter states: ‘The Board reviewed the report from the Ethics Committee and accepted their findings.’) So, now, speaking a week later to Melissa Blue, President Jewel was claiming the opposite is the case?
(Noted in passing: The clause starting with ‘so I’ appears to be completely non-sequitur from the preceding clause. I.e., I cannot see that anything about the Ethics Committee work being confidential precluded Ms. Jewel from disclosing what portions of the complaint they or the Board judged relevant to the Ethics Code. That just doesn’t follow, at all, AFAIK. Am I crazy, or are they?)
Favourite comment about this new[ish] wrinkle: ‘Did they also issue a 1-year ban on their lawyers?’
Meanwhile, RWA’s rump Board has now appointed four replacement Directors, to fill four out of the nine Board vacancies: Maria Powers, Mellanie Szereto, Barbara Wallace, and Eliana West.
Three of those were advisors to the board before and were listed on the board page. Maria Powers was listed as PRO Advisor. Szereto was Chapter Advisor. Wallace was PAN Advisor.
Here is a piece about Sara Tisdale leaving the RWA. http://heartandscroll.com/2019/12/31/statement-heart-and-scroll-board-of-directors/
Here’s a good (and long) side-story to this mess:
https://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-whiteness-of-romance-writers-of.html
I can’t judge whether you are crazy or not but you are right: that comment makes zero sense. It would be like saying that the discussion in a jury room is confidential and therefore we can’t say what crime the accussed was found guilty of.
Thanks, Cam. It’s good to know
my sanity’s still in doubtthat I didn’t miss something blazingly obvious, there. This whole thing’s so wacked, one starts to wonder.Fittingly enough, the last workshop for the year for RWA was the Kiss of Death Chapter, holding their COFFIN workshop.
https://www.rwa.org/Online/Events/Chapter_Events.aspx
The Ilona Andrews thread is interesting; it sounds like the “lump of labor” theory (often called a fallacy) that I remember from elementary-economics classes. If whichever of them wrote this is correct, some romance writers don’t understand that covering more topics in a genre will get more people reading that genre, rather than just dividing the same-size pie among more people. It’s possible that “Andrews” is incorrect and the conservative writers are thinking only about what they see as vandalism, rather like the reported reaction of older studio musicians to the rise of the group known as The Wrecking crew, but I get the impression that RWA is more focused on money than (e.g.) SFWA.
LORDY! Thanks, @Mike Glyer and @Various. It just! gets! worse!
Deirdre (my sweetie) pointed out what she calls the best one-tweet summation of the RWA debacle so far, by @scottlynch78:
Well, once the holiday lights come down, this dumpster fire will still be keeping things bright.
Thanks for following this, Mike. It’s a mess, but a compelling one, and it’s helpful that you are keeping the many threads sorted.
The feel the difference between this and the SFWA kerfuffle is that with the SFWA. there was an attempt by a faction to seize power. In the case of the RWA, it feels more like an attempt by those in power to consolidate that power.
@ Simon Watkins:
Well, the people currently in power (of the RWA) do not seem to be the people who were in power when the initial complaint was filed. There’s probably some overlap, but for sure the president of RWA has changed.
These two are an interesting combination:
According to Policy Manual, RWA is bound to respond officially to all letters sent to the board.
https://twitter.com/SusannahErwin/status/1212766644818210817?s=19
Board email is scrubbed from website.
https://twitter.com/SusannahErwin/status/1212767903566614528?s=19
…and email address is back again.
For some reason, the image of cockroaches fleeing from bright lights keeps coming to mind.
RWA seems to have removed the safeguards against discrimination from the RITA:s too. See thread.
https://twitter.com/SheRead_HeSaid/status/1212930042843389952?s=19
There’s more in that thread, including the RWA’s Silverberg problem: Suede reporting people complaining to him about a RITA winner’s speech that “bashed conservatives”. The details appear near the bottom of the long Guardian book article in one of the tweets. The article also gives details about a number of other issues that tweet threads, being clipped, have referenced very briefly; nothing in the article should be surprising, but all the slights gathered together are appalling. I’m especially … amused? … by the “weaponization of civility”, from a group of people too many of whom are quiet — or even happy — when the Chee-toh in the Oval Office puts another stinking mass on Twitter.
@Chip–Yes, and that article is from April, meaning that everyone active in RWA could have seen this coming. Many were willfully blind.
Chuck Tingle has opinions.
Who but Chuck Tingle would add “no sex” as a selling point? Or need to?
Chuck wrote sweet erotica? My head is spinning. Talk about oxymorons. 😉
(“Sweet” is often used in the genre to describe a romance that has no sex in it.)
@Mike Glyer: Indeed!
Apparently his latest has a bonus story included, too.
I’m reading updates at Claire Ryan’s daily-updated post and I’m just . . . uh . . . well, my head’s exploding and I’m just past the first bullet point and skimming the rest before continuing. HOLY CRUDOLA!
Unrelated side note: The preview box says “Kendall on at said:” without date/time (at is a weird link). So the time machine exploded? 😉
@Kendall
It’s been like that for a while. I’ve stopped paying attention to it.
A question arose about whether Suede actually fit the criteria for his position of prez-elect (which autocorrect turned into “prey-elect,” heh).
https://twitter.com/SusannahErwin/status/1213352830917984259
Newest story from the Guardian has this money quote:
In an interview with the Guardian, Davis said she was “encouraged” by the administration of Romance Writers of America (RWA), a trade association for romance writers, to file a formal complaint against Milan, an influential former board member and diversity advocate. She now feels she had been “used” to secure a political outcome that she had never intended.
“They encouraged us. They wanted us very badly to file these complaints,” Davis said
Perhaps mentioned somewhere previously, but FYI Claire Ryan writes SFF (the one who has the daily-updated post about the RWA implosion). Her books don’t sound like they have romance in them, though probably they have a little (just mentioning because some folks aren’t interested in heavy-romance books). And her first novel, The Melding, is free at iBooks, Kobo, and B&N (not Amazon Kindle, though). Not sure about non-U.S., sorry.
@P J Evans: Thanks, I figured as much. I haven’t had much time to keep up and comment here lately, so I hadn’t noticed.
I suspect the Soggoth of having done major damage, this time, that won’t get repaired anytime soon.
@johnstick: Thanks for the link/info! Interesting, though two things jump out at me:
#1 It leads off with her saying her complaint about the professional harm wasn’t accurate. Uh, so she lied in her ETHICS complaint and has been lieing since then?! Gah, this makes her look worse, but I’m glad she finally came clean and solved the mystery about the mythical book deal (it was mythical, i.e., was not a book deal). So kudos to her for finally clarifying that, I suppose!
#2 I’m not sympathetic to her claims of manipulation. I don’t disbelieve them (ETA: to clarify, I don’t believe or disbelieve; she doesn’t seem like a reliable narrator, so I just have no idea, BUT it seems very possible, given all the other stuff going on), but no, she has to own what she did. No one forced her to file a complaint and help start this snowball rolling. And see #1, above; no one forced her to lie in her ethics complaint (!!!).
So she’s not making herself look much better to me with that article, though I appreciate the explanation about the supposed book deal, etc. But it’s definitely been clear for a while now (a while in this “10 head-exploding new things daily” surreal timeline) that she was just one part of bad actor shenanigans going on with and at RWA.
Unrelated to that article: Good point by Courtney Milan that this whole thing hurts her (Courtney’s) career. ISTM this is one of those “yup but impossible to measure” things. No matter how things turn out, not everyone will get the whole story; not everyone will believe it; etc.
I liked (well, “liked”) the transition from (boy am I paraphrasing, and not particularly kindly or generously) “I didn’t see what I had to apologise for! Nothing racist about my book! Courtney Milan is just mean!” to “someone sufficiently deferential to soothe my feelings of superiority gave me a list of things to change in my racist book to make it less racist, which I have done, thereby acknowledging that it was, in fact, racist”.
(And failing to acknowledge that the apparent publication date of the copy Courtney Milan reviewed was 2014.)
Along with the admitting to at best exaggerating about the book contract, and general “none of this was my fault! NONE!” finger-pointing crocodile tears feel of the thing, it’s just… urgh. Apologise and then shut up like your editor told you to do in the first damn place. Stop digging!
I agree that Ms. Davis is not a particularly reliable witness, and I do not think her new story gets her off the hook, but the more important issue is whether RWA staff is discouraging or failing to act on ethics complaints by writers of color while at the same time soliciting complaints attacking writers of color. On that issue, Ms. Davis’ story is consistent with the staff’s failure to follow RWA’s bylaws in handling the Tisdale/Davis complaints. At the least it reinforces the need for an independent investigation of the staff’s handling of ethics complaints.
@Meredith: Yes, stop digging. Twitter has predictable exploded on how ludicrous the latest chapter is (many comments, including substantive ones, follow):
https://twitter.com/AlyssaColeLit/status/1213496610128355328
@johnstick: Oh yes.