Mercedes Lackey Removed from the Nebula Conference

SFWA removed Mercedes Lackey from this weekend’s Nebula Conference less than 24 hours after celebrating her selection as a Grand Master during the Nebula Awards ceremony. The reason given is that she “used a racial slur” while on a panel.  

SFWA explained the action in a “Statement on Removal of Mercedes Lackey from the Nebula Conference”.

Dear Nebula Conference Participants and SFWA Members,

We learned yesterday that while participating in the “Romancing Sci-Fi & Fantasy” panel, Mercedes Lackey used a racial slur. First, we apologize to our attendees and the other panelists who were subjected to that slur. We’ve disabled access to the panel to avoid any additional harm being caused.

Second, we are immediately removing Mercedes Lackey from the conference and the additional panels she was scheduled for, in accordance with SFWA’s Moderation Policy. The use of a racial slur violates the instruction to “Respect all cultures and communities. Do not make derogatory or offensive statements even as a joke.” That applies to everyone in a SFWA space, at all levels of their career.

Third, we will be discussing with the other panelists for “Romancing Sci-Fi & Fantasy” how they would prefer we proceed when they are able and comfortable in doing so. We will be offering to edit out the offensive portion of the panel or hold the panel again at a later date, inviting back the other three panelists and moderator to again take part. We will respect their wishes on how to handle this issue while also sharing the invaluable expertise they offered during the discussion. 

Thank you to our conference attendees and panelists who reported the use of the slur. We appreciate being alerted to it right away, so we could investigate and come to this decision as swiftly as possible.

The SFWA Board of Directors

The circumstances and the specific slur are discussed by Jen Brown in a Twitter thread that starts here.

What was said is stated in the Twitter thread.

This is the second time an issue has come up since Lackey was announced as a Grand Master last fall. Previously, SFWA asked Lackey to “clarify a past statement on writing trans characters”.

187 thoughts on “Mercedes Lackey Removed from the Nebula Conference

  1. “Age and upbringing is no excuse. Ms. Lackey used a word that has been considered rude since before she was born.”

    This may be so, but in that case certainly not by all. !n 2008, Carla Sims, communications director for the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), stated: “The term ‘colored’ is not derogatory, [the NAACP] chose the word ‘colored’ because it was the most positive description commonly used [in 1909, when the association was founded]. It’s outdated and antiquated but not offensive.”

  2. Ms. Lackey’s use of that word was wrong. That use has been inappropriate for some time. I see no evidence that SFWA offered her an opportunity to correct her remarks and apologize before going straight to removing her from the program. In this case, the consequences far exceed the offense.

    WRT to “free speech”, politics is downhill from culture. The modern practice of dogpiling someone for the slightest deviation from certain perspectives certainly serves to chill the expression of dissenting perspectives. Culture has advanced to be more accepting of minority perspectives precisely because of a majority culture that supported the right of minority perspectives to express dissenting views. Degrading a larger cultural commitment to free speech will ultimately undo that progress.

    The observation that Orwell wasn’t writing an instruction manual remains sadly evergreen.

    Regards,
    Dann
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. John Stuart Mill

  3. John-Henri Holmberg: What exactly is it you’re telling us by adding that clipping to the discussion. That you take license from it to use the word freely? I hope not.

  4. No. I just noted that a previous poster claimed that ms Lackey used a word which she had no excuse to use, since it had “been considered rude since before she was born”. Ms Lackey was born in 1950; if the NAACP viewe the word as “not offensive” in 2009, when she was 59, it seems to stretch accusations against her considerably further than reasonable. And, I admit, possibly leave room for doubt as to whether she actually knew that this particular word was no longer acceptable.

  5. Dann:

    The modern practice of dogpiling someone for the slightest deviation from certain perspectives certainly serves to chill the expression of dissenting perspectives.

    So, you’re not in favor of dogpiling Jen Brown? Or is it only old white people who get a pass for slight deviations and dissenting perspectives?

  6. John-Henri Holmberg: Mz. Sims was wrong about how it impacts many African-Americans. She may have mis-spoke, or she may just have a minority (no pun intended) opinion that I assure you is not how a lot of us see that term’s usage, in public situations. Given that even Press Secretaries for the US White House have been corrected by Presidents, you can see that a Comms director doesn’t always speak 100% for an organization.

    Sometimes, that happens.

    Also: The Black community is not a monolith, and not all of us share the exact same opinions on everything; the ask is to align to generally known codes of conduct, not to match every possible interaction with a Black person.

    Moreover, I sincerely doubt Ms. Lackey would even know what Mz. Sims said! So proof that the term was in common, accepted usage would be far more persuasive than a one-off comment not in common circulation in American culture.

    To that end, I will say that Wikipedia goes on to note, when it references that quote, that “However, NAACP today rarely uses its full name and made this decision not long after the United Negro College Fund switched to using just UNCF or United Fund.”

    To me, that makes the case that the org as a whole — and other orgs of similar ancestry — simply avoid using the term, no matter what one rep. of the org has said. That’s a sign they do not wish it to be in common circulation.

  7. Some people are putting a lot of effort into not acknowledging that the word is offensive, as if there’s a smoking gun out there which would trump how actual people are saying they feel about it.

    Carla Sims, the authority on whether the word was offensive in 2008 and evidently today, has moved on from the NAACP to be Dave Chapelle’s publicist. We probably can look forward to new guidance from her on what terms about transgender people are non-derogatory.

  8. I have more sympathy for Lackey than for Dixon. He’s being actively and intentionally offensive.

  9. I see no evidence that SFWA offered her an opportunity to correct her remarks and apologize before going straight to removing her from the program.

    We don’t know how the situation was handled between SFWA and Lackey before the announcement of her removal.

    If you think she would’ve taken an opportunity to correct her remarks and apologize, why hasn’t she done so in any public forum as of today?

  10. For those who think that SFWA’s action was inappropriately extreme, I’d like you to ponder what sort of message it would have sent if SFWA (as conference runners) had not taken immediate, concrete, and public action in response to a violation of the conference code of conduct. Would that message have been “we pay lip service to inclusiveness but won’t actually do anything”? Would it have been “It’s ok to violate the code of conduct if you’re famous enough”? Would it have been “SFWA grandmasters are given a pass on acting inappropriately”? Can you imagine the fallout if nothing had been done at the time, making any actual follow-up meaninglessly moot?

    I have previously witnessed examples at sff conventions where someone broke a CoC or venue rule with absolutely no ill intent (thoughtlessness, or ignorance, or a simple brain-fart), was then removed from programming/the event, and behaved appropriately about it. “Behaved appropriately” meant making a public statement of acceptance of the ruling, taking complete personal responsibility for the action and its consequences, and explicitly supporting the organization that was put in the position of having to make the call. Anything short of that and I’m not willing to assume that the original action had no ill intent.

    And I’m not saying that there’s never room for disagreement on the nuances of such a decision or action. I’m saying that someone who genuinely had no ill intent has a responsibility to uphold the underlying principles, and take ownership for their actions, and deflect the inevitable negative reactions away from the organization in question and especially away from the person(s) they inadvertently hurt. And if you are a highly visible figure in the community, you have even more of a responsibility to do so.

  11. What’s with the obsession with public apologies these days? I personally find most of them forced and insincere. I don’t know why anyone who was genuinely offended would accept one, and even if you want to be cynical, they rarely even seem to work just for PR purposes. Will Smith issued a public apology to Chris Rock; anyone buy into that? Does anyone really believe Mel Gibson is not a racist and an anti-Semite after his public apologies?

    If you ever offend me, apologize to me directly and explain why you did it– otherwise, don’t bother. I have no interest in seeing someone apologize for an audience in order to try to salvage their career.

  12. In this case, the offense wasn’t directed at any one specific person so a private apology isn’t possible. The offense was to the public, so the apology and committment to change should also be public.
    Making a mistake is normal and natural. Apologising and attempting to fix things is the correct response to mistakes being pointed out. These things have not happened.

  13. Pingback: Mercedes Lackey Publishes Apology | File 770

  14. Damn665:

    “WRT to “free speech”, politics is downhill from culture. The modern practice of dogpiling someone for the slightest deviation from certain perspectives certainly serves to chill the expression of dissenting perspectives.”

    As if a dogpile wasn’t the use of free speech by several individuals. You can’t use the free speech defense for offensive speech without also defending the free speech of dog piles.

    Personally, I do believe there should be limits to free speech and there are also regulations in my country against racism, incitement, defamation and more. A lot of speech from US politicians (mostly Republicans) would be illegal here in Sweden.

  15. @Maytree

    That would reach just as many people likely to be hurt just as quickly, to minimise the possibility of further harm to them? No, I can’t think of another option, actually.

    Your reply to rcade once again makes it perfectly clear that you think those injured by racism should silence themselves for the protection of those who injure them. No. The solution to Twitter dogpiles is not and never will be minority silence, not least because most dogpiles attack those same minorities, not “old white” people.

    I do not appreciate you attempting to put words in my mouth. I said person because I meant person, not because I meant name. The focus of Jen Brown’s thread was entirely on the word, her reaction, and the warning, that someone was – had to be – responsible? Unmentioned. It was as measured, careful, polite, and cautious as any warning could possibly be without obscuring to the point of uselessness.

    Also, everything Lenora Rose said.

  16. @Cheryl S

    So, you’re not in favor of dogpiling Jen Brown?

    Your presumption of malintent on my part is misplaced. I am criticizing SFWA’s reaction and not Ms. Brown’s reasonable/understandable initial complaint.

    @rcade

    We don’t know how the situation was handled between SFWA and Lackey before the announcement of her removal.

    Indeed. SFWA’s process is a long way from transparent.

    @Heather Rose Jones

    I appreciate your concern/perspective. SFWA might have taken immediate action to discern the intent and context of the event, offered an opportunity for mitigation/apology if the context justified such an opportunity, and otherwise responded proportionately to the situation at hand. Who knows what they actually did because their public-facing actions did not foster transparency, quite the opposite.

    The response to someone purposefully saying vile, racist things shouldn’t be the same as the response to someone that fumbled while speaking extemporaneously, IMO. The penalty for doing 70 in a 25 zone is properly different from the penalty for doing 70 in a 60 zone.

    As Mike indicated, Ms. Lackey has apologized.

    Regards,
    Dann
    It has been said that the sin of ingratitude is more serious than the sin of revenge. With revenge, we return evil for evil, but with ingratitude, we return evil for good. – W. Eugene Hansen

  17. A few days later, my confusion is not improved. My wife has been watching “Finding Your roots” with Henry Gates Jr. (arguably a notable part of the community in question) and he evidences no strong preference, moving back and forth between using “black” or “coloured” seemingly at whim in referring to people and their ancestors.

  18. Kent: Why are people so determined to exactly measure this? We know people who were hurt by it. We know it’s archaic. Pulling stories about discussing genealogy or older Black people talking about it says a lot less about which older WHITE people use it.

    This is the calculus, as I understand it, from a younger Black person faced with a white person in a position of some authority using it:

    They used an old fashioned term that they know is on the brink of offensive.
    -what other old fashioned thoughts and attitudes do they have? What other words do they think are okay? Was this a one time slip or if I say nothing, will staying in their presence be a death of a thousand cuts as they do this again, and again…?
    -and how safe us it for me to speak up?
    they claim to be an ally, but are they actually well meaning or are they the kind of person who will attack me and use worse words if I bring up that this bothered me? Will they use their other cases of alliance to claim this doesn’t matter, even though it hurt me?
    -will other people turn on me if I speak? They have more respect and more infouence in this group, will that work against me if I open my mouth?
    -Will they keep other from reacting badly to me or weaponize those other people against me?

    … And we know the answers to some of those now.

    So it’s not JUST exactly how severe the term is in the second. It’s the context.

  19. Indeed. SFWA’s process is a long way from transparent.

    It could have communicated better, in particular to Larry Dixon also being removed from the conference (as he has claimed).

    But after San Francisco Science Fiction Conventions Inc. had to pay over $100,000 in legal fees to defend itself in a lawsuit filed over the wording it used in announcing that someone was barred from its most recent Worldcon, organizations in SFF might not be well-served by transparency.

  20. Lenora: I am trying not to be part of a systemic problem and I’m finding it difficult to negotiate the waters. I saw a high profile member of the black community speaking directly to two other high profile members of the black community. I don’t feel like I gained anything from you explaining it to me.

  21. Sorry, Lenore, had I not hit enter for something else on the page, I’d have edited that a great deal more.

    I am working from the understanding that someone (or more than one someone) was bothered by a statement and said so to the people running things. As far as I know, the reporter had nothing to do with the decision of how to proceed. They might have been hoping MS Lackey was sent packing, they might have been content with a public apology. It was the committee who made the decision on how to proceed, not the reporting person(s). Incidents like this are going to come up again, and anyone who has an interest in running gatherings is going to have to deal with them. We need to understand how to make everyone feel safely included. If this was an appropriate reaction by the committee, that’s important information. If it was an over reaction by the committee, that’s also important information. I am not confused by why someone was unhappy about the word used, I am confused about whether ejecting the user from the gathering was an appropriate reaction.

  22. Kent: posting a comment that is 100% a discussion of a Black community member using the term (While talking about ancestry and likely referring to ancestors or documents from time where the word was in use and neutral) rather undermines your claim that your confusion is about whether or not the convention response was appropriate or an overreaction.

    I don’t doubt after clarification that you believe the convention response is under discussion, but that is literally not what you put on the page. I am also getting a bit knee-jerk at seeing “But exactly HOW bad is this remark” being the point of discussion, especially among white people (like me), often with the implication that if it has an acceptable in-group use, that makes it less of a problem coming from an out-group user.

    I think (Re rcade’s comment) that there seems to be some meat to the proposed theory that they removed Dixon in anticipation that he would have raised the same fit but at the convention and in front of panels if they kicked her out but let him stay … but I also think preemptively removing someone for anticipated behaviour is a wobbly proposition.

    I mean, I think it was right with Jon del Arroz who had documented evidence of a deliberate plan to break the CoC, but ejecting an already welcomed member on the basis of undeclared intentions (however likely) is different from disallowing a person from entering on the basis of declared ones. Of course, we don’t know what happened when the decision was made; while Dixon denies it, it’s possible he did or said something in private that gave them cause.

    I dislike the lack of transparency – but I ALSO agree with rcade that conventions have to be VERY careful now what they say about CoC violations in public. This doesn’t mean they can’t say anything! There are definitely things they could say that would settle some minds. It might, however, explain why they are being extra cautious.

  23. I don’t see many options for SFWA to consider in this situation.

    If an event organizer decides that someone’s comment has broken the rule, “Do not make derogatory or offensive statements even as a joke,” what are the potential punishments less severe than removing them from the event and making a public statement?

    The public statement is more damaging than the removal since it was going to bring a lot of negative attention to the speaker who made the comment. Making no public statement at all would have been viewed as sweeping it under the rug to prioritize the speaker’s reputation over the people affected by what was said. So I don’t see how that would’ve been an option.

    If any public statement is made, letting the speaker continue to attend the event sends a mixed message. If something is serious enough to warrant a public statement condemning the speaker, how is it not serious enough to remove the speaker from the event?

    Perhaps the organizer could have produced a statement in participation with the speaker that included their apology to mitigate the harm. But I can’t recall anyone kicked out of an event who participated in the announcement of their expulsion.

  24. It is very apparent that A Certain Demographic wants to say the “right” things, but when you spend all your time trying to rules lawyer anything white people say as “right”, over and above people who aren’t white saying “this is a problem” then you really aren’t interested in doing the right things so much as -being seen saying- the right things.

    There are no bright lines. One black person’s view does not represent all black people. Because someone told you once that you could use a term, does not give you full permission, regardless of context, in perpetuity.

    I think, had A Certain Jackhole not sued Worldcon, we might be having a very different conversation, but he did, and that’s on him and his affinity group.

    Please do stop trying to use black people as your racism shields. This would be a much better conversation without “So and so said it so I can, neener neener.” Yes, there are terms you can no longer use in polite company. You choose whether you want to be in that number. You will not always choose the right thing, tough noogies.

    Larry Dixon is a known causer of trouble and strife when he doesn’t get what he wants. I have no problem with the Con kicking him too, because he has before AND since amply demonstrated why they did not want to deal with his attitude once they disallowed his meal ticket. If you would like to be the person who stays after one’s spouse has been removed, think about what behavior you need to demonstrate now, for that to be an option in the future.

    This is simply change, and consequences. Not everyone can live in the 21st century comfortably. Think about Piotr VorKosigan’s arc VERY carefully. Who do you want to be?

  25. @rcade

    If something is serious enough to warrant a public statement condemning the speaker, how is it not serious enough to remove the speaker from the event?

    ???
    CoC violations can land anywhere on a spectrum of “bad”. Are you arguing that any violation must result in expulsion?
    To continue the metaphor, someone accidentally steps on my toe. They recognize it, apologize, and we both move on. Or they walk up to me, stomp on my foot, and laugh about it. The same injury in both events, but clearly the response should be different.
    [And given that evidence points to a lack of intent on Lackey’s part, that the usage was truly an accidental slip, I don’t think “condemning” the speaker is/was the right response, and was an overreaction. But that ship has sailed.]

  26. Are you arguing that any violation must result in expulsion?

    No, I’m arguing what you quoted. If it’s serious enough for a public statement, it’s serious enough for expulsion.

    By arguing that making a public statement against the speaker was an overreaction, you appear to be suggesting that no punishment at all was the right response.

    If SFWA had made no punishment, how does that look when people find out on social media what was said and how it made a person of color feel when she heard it as a panelist?

    Taking no action makes the rule, “Do not make derogatory or offensive statements even as a joke, unless you didn’t mean to say it.”

  27. someone accidentally steps on my toe. They recognize it, apologize, and we both move on. Or they walk up to me, stomp on my foot, and laugh about it. The same injury in both events, but clearly the response should be different.

    False equivalence: What Lackey did doesn’t involve any equivalent to recognizing her action or removing of her foot until after consequences had already hit. This is her blithely landing on someone’s foot while walking past, crying when she’s told she did it, and even after the fact, spending half her public apology talking about how she failed to notice stepping on someone’s foot because she was too intent on her friend who was a pioneer in gay inclusion, and almost none of the apology about the person whose foot she stepped on or other witnesses. (Yes, she reportedly also apologized to Jen in private. But not in public.)

    Was it intentional? No. Should it really bear minimal consequence in the same way as someone erring and noticing and attempting correction in the moment? Dubious.

  28. One thing that seems to be continually overlooked in all of this discussion, with the exception of a few commenters, is that this was NOT a first slip.

    Lackey and Dixon had already been the focus of controversy due to another slip, this time with regard to trans people. Similar behavior when called out on it, especially Dixon.

    One slip is an accident. More than that requires some sort of action. Otherwise, Codes of Conduct fall into the category of “if you’re a nobody, you get called on it. If you’re prominent, then we let it slide.” That’s been the unspoken status quo for a number of years.

    Change can hurt sometimes. But if the intention is to be serious about dealing with derogatory or offensive statements, then the rules apply to everyone, no matter what their age is, how intentional the comment was, or how prominent they are.

    Frankly, I’ve been appalled by some of the commentary on social media by people who want to make this all about ageism and excessive social awareness. They’re perfectly willing to throw the person who reacted to the wolves because how dare they say something bad about a prominent person in the industry. And most of them are my age or older.

  29. And the context was that the word being used in praise of another author by a person who has proven time and time again to be supporting and promoting underserved communities, LGBTQ, and people of color and was a slip in a high pressure public situation. Shouldn’t that also count?

  30. I dunno, putting an offensive term in the middle of praise more undermines the praise than pardons the term, in my experience.

  31. @rcade

    If it’s serious enough for a public statement, it’s serious enough for expulsion.

    Then we disagree. I think the SFWA would have to make a public statement for any infraction, intentional or otherwise, that became publicly known. That doesn’t mean that the infraction itself would have been so serious as to require expulsion.

    The SFWA’s statement says that actions were taken in accordance with the Moderation Policy, but the actions taken don’t appear to have actually been done that way. The Policy talks about taking actions after an investigation — was any investigating done here? Was Lackey expelled with knowledge that the “slur” was, from her perspective, a verbal slip?

    I can’t recall any analogous situation from a pre-Covid, face-to-face convention where someone was expelled without a good-faith attempt to get the offender’s side of the story. That doesn’t seem to have been the case here. If it was done, then the SFWA’s statements are deficient in not making that clear, and they should have at least said that despite the offense she gave to participants, it was not intentional on her part.
    (And given the wording of Lackey’s apology, I don’t think it was fully investigated. I certainly can’t see how Dixon’s expulsion was in accordance with the Moderation Policy.)

    By arguing that making a public statement against the speaker was an overreaction,

    I’m not arguing that — I’m saying that “condemning” the speaker (your view) is an overreaction. I’m happy to condemn the offensive word, but not the speaker (at least, under these specific circumstances).

    If SFWA had made no punishment,

    Who said “no” punishment? I’m arguing that the response should have been something short of expulsion.

    Going back to your previous post,

    If an event organizer decides that someone’s comment has broken the rule, “Do not make derogatory or offensive statements even as a joke,” what are the potential punishments less severe than removing them from the event and making a public statement?

    , the Moderation Policy specifies a number of actions that could have been taken short of expulsion: “the moderator may contact the offender, edit the post, post a warning, delete the post, lock the discussion, or monitor the discussion for further developments according to their own judgment. . . . At the discretion of the moderator, and depending on circumstances and persistence, the participants will lose access to the SFWA space for a period of time while the situation is being addressed. Depending on outcome of the investigation, the moderator may permanently remove a participant from the space entirely.” As I’ve been saying, violations of the CoC lie on a spectrum of how wrong they were, and responses should parallel that spectrum. Expulsion is not the only possible response. The Policy envisioned and acknowledged that, and it does not appear to have been followed here.

    Expulsion is the only “death penalty” available to a conference director. If it is used, it should be only with consideration and open explanation of why lesser actions were not appropriate.

    @Lenora — metaphors are not supposed to be equivalent. If you fault me because the metaphor isn’t similar enough for you to the events in question, I’ll take the hit.

  32. The Policy talks about taking actions after an investigation — was any investigating done here?

    The SFWA statement that leads this post says that an investigation took place: “We appreciate being alerted to it right away, so we could investigate and come to this decision as swiftly as possible.” It also says that the SFWA learned of the comment the day before it announced the action taken.

    the moderator may contact the offender, edit the post, post a warning, delete the post, lock the discussion, or monitor the discussion for further developments according to their own judgment.

    These policies are about online discussion. None of them are a possible response to something that took place on an event panel.

    If it is used, it should be only with consideration and open explanation of why lesser actions were not appropriate.

    I would never recommend that to a con handling a disciplinary situation. Say the minimum you can. Remember the case of San Francisco Science Fiction Conventions Inc. v. Pakled

    If you think there’s a suitable punishment that would have addressed what Mercedes Lackey said, tell us what it is.

  33. The wrong word used unintentionally does not deserve a punishment, period, so long as the person expresses regret and promises not to use it again. I guarantee every person in here calling for punishment has said something worse in their lifetime, most likely intentionally, and escaped without comeuppance even when they deserved it. This is simply holier-than-thou hypocrisy and mob judgmentalism (from a position of safety) at its worst.

  34. Quote me the Promise not to do it again. Quote me the regret that is about the harm done and not about blundering in public.

  35. Being certain that the notable person said something hurtful unintentionally — while at the same time believing everyone criticizing them has said something worse intentionally — is sycophancy.

    Anyone can say they had no harmful intent after something hurtful comes out of their mouths. A baseball player just derisively called a Black player “Jackie” during a game, days after they exchanged words during an on-field clash. He insists it was never intended as an insult, but it couldn’t be more clear that it was. (Fans of his team are now derisively chanting “Jackie” at the player he insulted, which is appallingly racist.)

    There should be more to consider than whether someone says they intended no harm, like the impact of what they said regardless of whether they meant it.

  36. Pingback: Pixel Scroll 6/2/22 The Left Hand Of Pixelness | File 770

Comments are closed.