Pages

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

“A Series of Unfortunate Events”—AWP, David Fenza, and Kate Gale’s “AWP Is Us”

LATEST NEWS: AWP director Fenza defends Kate Gale's piece.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/trade-shows-events/article/67908-red-hen-press-kate-gale-apologizes-for-commentary-awp-defends-her.html


This is a long post because I’m trying to give a timeline of events in a situation that bodes ill for #diverselit writers and some background for my readers who are not familiar with the situation or even with the organization and players. This series of events begins with the announcement of panel acceptances for The Association of Writers and Writing Programs (AWP), the nation’s largest national organization for writers and academic programs that teach writing. There is always fierce competition for representation on such panels—by individuals because travel funding from their institution to even attend AWP (which is an expensive, huge conference) often depends on them being named to a panel and by AWP’s various communities because, as with so many large national organizations, the default tends to white male. This last, I want to point out is something that AWP has been working on in recent years. They still have a long way to go, but they have made real progress from the early days when AWP was primarily white and male. The panel representation has diversified remarkably from those days, although it is still problematic, and the establishment of caucuses for marginalized communities within AWP has been a major step forward.



After a disastrous earlier mix-up which inadvertently made some unofficial decisions public and caused dissatisfied speculation and murmurings even before the official list came out, the list of official panel acceptances was announced on Twitter. An AWP member named Laura Mullen tweeted in reply (from her personal account), asking if they would furnish demographics on the panel selections. AWP director David Fenza then sent her an email chiding her for “casting aspersions” on AWP and copied both her department chair and associate chair.  For someone on tenure track or non-tenured or adjunct, as many AWP members in the marginalized communities are, this would have been an effective silencing tactic, threatening their employment. In Mullen’s case, she is an endowed professor and tenured, as well as director of LSU’s writing program, so she was not silenced. She wrote about it on her blog and posted Fenza’s letter, and the whole situation blew up on social media.






Soon, a petition was posted at Change.org, focused on the lack of disability panels and asking for increased transparency and for Fenza to apologize to Mullen and for the AWP Board to officially underscore that intimidation tactics by Board or staff of AWP against members would not be tolerated.






At that time, AWP should have risen to the occasion. Fenza should have publicly apologized. The Board should have issued a statement disavowing such intimidation tactics and stating they would not be tolerated. AWP should have agreed to more transparency and entered discussions as to how this could be accomplished. If this had happened, AWP would have been seen as a responsive and responsible organization. But, of course, it didn’t. The Board members are located all over the U.S., the leader of the staff was the person (Fenza) with the most to lose, and institutions in general move slowly in making decisions and dealing with crises. But finally AWP began to release some stats on panel selection and talk about the possibility of more transparency in the future—without, unfortunately, addressing the issues raised around disability or Fenza’s letter.

Next in this unfortunate sequence of events, we come to founder and CEO of Red Hen Press, member of the AWP 2016 conference committee, juror for panel selection for AWP 2016, Kate Gale, and her Huffington Post piece, “AWP Is Us.” (She has been scrubbing all evidence of this from the internet, so I have included screenshots of her actual original article as graphics on this post.) Also, here’s a link to a PDF of the original article.



There is so much wrong with this article that it’s hard to know where to start, the offensive, insulting stereotypes of so many groups—could she have packed more stereotypes into one short piece?—the chiding tone, the “you people” right up front in her first paragraph. I’m going to focus on the second and third paragraphs for purely personal reasons—because she used those paragraphs to insult and offend me and mine and because I believe she used me and mine as a stalking horse since she didn’t have the nerve to write a piece ridiculing and insulting people with disabilities (who were the originators of the petition). A lot of folks are fine with ignoring people with disabilities and treating them as invisible, but then worry about being seen as cruel if they publicly make fun of people with wheelchairs, canes, braces, and walkers. (I say this with more than a hint of personal bitterness, since I’m one of those people on canes.)

But Indians, hey, everyone makes fun of Indians. It’s a national pastime. In Washington, D.C., people make themselves up as caricatures of Indians to go to ballgames in big groups and ridicule us. At music festivals, hip young things don our sacred regalia or perversions of it to dance around half-naked.  America’s been insulting us and underestimating us for centuries.



“One of the complaints lobbed at AWP is for not enough inclusion of different groups, another is for more transparency. This summer I was at a dinner and someone leaned across to me and confided, ‘AWP hates Native Americans.’

‘Really now?’ I said, ‘I'm going to be in Washington this summer and I'd love to discuss this with them.’ I took out a pen and paper. ‘Who hates Indians at the office there? Is it Fenza?’ I pictured David Fenza saddling up a horse, Stetson in place, going out to shoot Indians. It was an unlikely image. The woman began fumbling around; she couldn't tell me who the Indian hater was.”



 


Yes, let’s look at that image of David Fenza shooting Indians. How nineteenth century for such a twenty-first century woman? Perhaps she doesn’t know any of us survived the Removals and Indian Wars? No, that can’t be. She has prominent Native writers on her board and has published Native writers (none of whom I will name here because I know they must be cringing over this debacle already). So, it’s not ignorance. It must be a deliberate attempt to bring in a reminder of the genocidal Indian Wars, a reminder to us that we should be careful and not challenge powerful white people. I don’t think David Fenza hates Indians, but her own words make me think Kate Gale does.



I don’t believe for a second that this conversation took place, or if it did, it was not in those words. I know a large number of the Native writers who attend AWP, and I know of not one who would say, “AWP hates Native Americans.” Frankly, I know a hell of a lot of writers from many marginalized communities at AWP, some of whom have been quite angry with AWP for a while, but no one I know would say the organization hates Latinos/African Americans/LGTBQ people/whatever. I suspect this is more what a privileged white person thinks a person from a marginalized community would say. It’s basically Tea Party rhetoric in an environment where that kind of discourse is the last thing I would expect.



Indigenous writers at AWP have been working with the Board and the staff to increase Indigenous representation and participation, and while AWP is slow in implementing desired changes (as one learns to expect from big organizations), the staff and Board have been basically supportive. We keep pushing, and they slowly respond with greater representation and participation. We wish they were faster to change, and they wish we would stop asking for more, but our conversations and relationship have never been marked with hostility on either side. As I said earlier, I suspect Gale didn’t want to say something as openly and pointedly ridiculing and offensive about people with disabilities, so she chose our community as a safe and acceptable stalking horse. This was a mistake, of course, but then the whole piece was a massive mistake, insulting people of color, LGBTQ folks—and people with disabilities were not fooled, anyway.



Immediately, the comments section at Huffington Post began accreting negative comments, some of it quite thoughtful and excellent feedback for Gale if she bothered to read it. A stream of even more hostile comments began on Twitter. Facebook, especially in groups dedicated to traditionally marginalized writers, developed long, multi-faceted conversations around “AWP Is Us.” Thoughtful blog posts sprang up, and Higher Education Inside and Publishers Weekly published articles about it.









With all the negative feedback swarming around, AWP finally made a limited comment. In a tweet from the official AWP Twitter feed, they said: “AWP board and staff were unaware of Kate Gale’s Huffington Post article until it was posted. AWP did not and does not endorse the article.” Many people felt this was too little, too late, especially as the chair of the AWP 2016 conference committee, a Board member, initially “LIKED” this article when first posted, only to remove that later when all the negative publicity arose.



Then Gale took down her article on Huffington Post and posted the following non-apology.






Other than the first sentence—“I apologize for this post and the hurt it caused.”—the rest of the post is basically the Red Hen Press mission statement and an ad for the press. Apparently, she had become aware of the way her article was adversely affecting Red Hen Press. There had been suggestions that it be boycotted. Along with others, I cautioned that such a boycott would harm the writers of RHP, who were probably in pain already from the piece their publisher had posted in such a huge public forum.  I do have great sympathy for RHP’s authors and its board members, who were almost certainly not consulted before this blog was posted and who must have felt it as a great betrayal from someone whom they trusted.



As this post is going up, the most recent media coverage is an article in the Los Angeles Times, which also criticizes her portrayal of Los Angeles as not welcoming to literary culture.






Gale is reaping the whirlwind that she sowed, and my final word on her aspect of this huge fiasco is a suggestion that people look up her resume. She is woven through the warp and weft of national literary culture, sitting on the boards or in leadership positions of many of our largest and most influential organizations that give awards and grants and publication. Ask yourself how little confidence writers of color, writers with disabilities, LGBTQ writers, and other marginalized communities can have that their work or the work of the best people in their communities will have a real chance at any of these awards, grants, panels, or other opportunities when someone who thinks this way is in power. Ask yourself how this is fair or just.



To me, however, the most important part of this disaster is the organization, AWP. This organization is a vital one for writers, academic programs, and literary culture in this country. It has made some real progress, after initially being dragged with a little screaming into the diversity of the twenty-first century. I hate to see its forward momentum blocked. I think establishment folks don’t actually realize that many writers in marginalized communities, who are fighting for every tiny scrap of representation in the larger community they can get, fear that those people in charge of all these large organizations feel the way Gale writes about their communities. I think it’s a subtler thing than that, a more institutional and unconscious bias in favor of the familiar, but those in leadership positions at AWP need to understand that many will read Gale’s piece and say, “Wow! What I was always afraid of is true!” It is imperative that AWP make absolutely clear, not just that they disavow any hint of approval for this piece, but that they will take concrete steps immediately to move toward greater transparency and make a strong formal statement that tactics of intimidation by AWP Board or staff toward members are unacceptable and will face serious consequences. And I think AWP must ask itself honestly whether it can continue to enjoy any confidence from its membership if David Fenza remains as its leader without formal reprimand to Fenza or apology to Mullen.



I have been so pleased to see the transformation over the years of AWP into a much more diverse organization and conference. I have so enjoyed seeing my fellow writers from marginalized communities begin to show up in greater and greater numbers every year. I would hate to see a reversal of all the very real good work that hard-working people on that board and on that staff have put in through the years to make this happen. I hope AWP will meet the challenge it is currently facing and, for once, do the right thing fully when it needs to be done and not much, much too little too late.

23 comments:

  1. Kate Gale should step down from the sub-committee of AWP. The Red Hen Board should convene and consider to what extent her behavior has compromised their mission. And make the decision at that point whether to request her resignation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. I agree with you, especially for the AWP committee. I'm much more concerned about all the other positions of power in the literary community that she holds than about Red Hen Press. Her presence alone in those positions makes those organizations unsafe places for writers from marginalized communities.

    This is Linda commenting from my husband's account.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David Fenza should resign. And if he won't, he should be fired. Thanks for this thoughtful blog, Linda.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Janet, I do think yo're right. We know about this instance of intimidation because the target had her own power. How many times has this happened with people who are in vulnerable positions and have just been silenced?

    This is Linda commenting from my husband's account.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/trade-shows-events/article/67908-red-hen-press-kate-gale-apologizes-for-commentary-awp-defends-her.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, for fuck's sake! This man is killing this organization that I love. Thanks for letting me know about this.

    Linda posting from my husband's account

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you for this excellent piece, Linda. I posted it to Facebook.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you for such a measured and thorough retelling of events. You pose some interesting questions. I went online to search out the original post to judge for myself and couldn't find it. What I found instead was another arrogant piece by Gale judging her overweight mother-in-law and "smiling" to herself about anyone 100lbs overweight calling themselves "healthy." As an overweight person myself, I wonder if there'd be a seat for me at Gale's ideal AWP?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I appreciate your response to Kate Gale's letter. As a AWP member, I have concerns with transparency (which Ms. Mullin tried to address) and the dismissive tone of Fenza and other board members. If AWP board doesn't speak up, they are complicit.
    As of yesterday, I saw a tweet from AWP: "The AWP board and staff were unaware of Kate Gale’s Huffington Post article until it was posted. AWP did not and does not endorse the article."
    I personally don't think that is enough but AWP also tweeted:"Have suggestions about ways AWP can better serve its members and conference attendees? Send them to suggestions@awpwriter.org."
    There has to be a wider avenue than just suggestions, but that is a start.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sarah, thanks for reposting it. I appreciate it.

    Suzanne, yes. don't make the mistake I did of going back and reading all her HuffPo pieces. Not good for the blood pressure. I posted the screen shots to this blog because she scrubbed all trace of her original, but a friend of mine had screencapped it while it was still up.

    Look at the link at the top of this post, One Latina's Pen. AWP director Fenza defends Gale and her piece to Publishers Weekly. *banging my head on the desk*

    Linda using my husband's account

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is an excellent summary, Linda. I am grateful. One small nuance--Kate Gale wouldn't have had to "scrub" her post from Google's cache; the cache updates with the passage of time. I only mention it because I think it's important we not attribute any exaggerated powers to Gale, or to Fenza, who has opted to allege there are "conspiracy theorists" driving the outcry. My focus is on the tangible, demonstrable choices made by the Executive Director of AWP, implicitly and explicitly wielding the power of AWP, and whether they are an appropriate representation of the community AWP represents. I would truly appreciate having a formal statement from the Board on this matter. In the meantime, posts such as these harness the power of the membership; thank you, again.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sandra, thanks for the information about Google's cache. i would also appreciate a formal statement from the Board on the matter. I'm hearing people say, "Let's take our money and our institution's money and spend it on another organization and conference that is more welcoming toward diversity." I'd hate to see that happen. I want to see AWP step up to the plate, as it can, and live up to its expressed standards on diversity.

    Linda using her husband's account

    ReplyDelete
  13. How about you let Jewish people -- like myself -- decide whether Gale's essay was "insulting", instead of presuming to speak for a few million people whose experiences in this world are no doubt different from yours, and by definition unavailable to you.

    I didn't think it was insulting at all -- but I thought your assumptions were. Maybe you could learn something from your blunder here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous, I don't presume to speak for Jewish people. If you look on Facebook and Twitter, you will find a number of Jewish members who have expressed their dismay at her treatment of them in this piece. If you didn't feel insulted by her article, I'm happy for you since it's an unpleasant experience, but that does not invalidate the experience of other Jewish members.


    Linda using her (Jewish, AWP-member) husband's account

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why is your husband's religion relevant? Do you think that somehow makes you a spokesman for Jews, or your remarks more acceptable?

    I guess you don't learn from your mistakes after all. More's the pity.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous, I'm truly sorry you're upset about this. I stand behind what I said in my earlier comment. However, I have no desire to inflict any further pain or insult on anyone here since there's certainly been enough of that. I will remove the single mention of Jewish people made in the blog above since, as you remind me, all Jewish members may not share the feeling of insult that some of them have expressed. It won't change the content or what I have said one bit. I will, however, leave these comments as they are.

    Linda

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you so much, Linda, for putting all of this together, for responding in what I can only call "clear, measured outrage," and, as always, for your courage and conviction and good spirit. Hugs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you, Beverly. I had hoped to show some separation between AWP and Gale's article, but the director publicly aligned the organization behind her article and called those complaining "conspiracy theorists" (as you can see, I've documented what I've said here), so ... *sigh*

    Linda posting from my husband's account

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ignorance prettied up, regardless of the dress or of the numbers, is still ignorance. Good luck with all this, Linda. I hope headway can be made; it doesn't look hopeful with the present cast of characters.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks, Mary. We can all use the luck.

    Linda posting from my husband's account

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ask yourself how little confidence writers of color, writers with disabilities, LGBTQ writers, and other marginalized communities can have that their work or the work of the best people in their communities will have a real chance at any of these awards, grants, panels, or other opportunities when someone who thinks this way is in power. Ask yourself how this is fair or just.--I do ask myself this question... many times... and I am thankful that I'm not alone... thank you for lifting this veil for what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Araceli, this is what a lot of people can't seem to understand. Once someone has shown thought patterns like this, how can people of color, LGBTQ people, etc., have any confidence that they'll be treated fairly by such a person? I've had a lot of white people say, "She's such a nice person. I'm sure she didn't mean it." They have trouble understanding that someone may be very pleasant and still hold these kinds of stereotypes about marginalized communities in her mind. I don't imagine she'll have to leave any of those positions of power (which means I'm probably screwed ;-) ), but perhaps other people in such positions of power, which are overwhelmingly held by white people, will question themselves as to what stereotypes they are holding without being aware of it and become more aware so the playing field will be leveled just a little.

    Linda posting from my husban's account

    ReplyDelete