As of today, January 10, 2020, here’s where we are with the implosion of RWA:
- Damon Suede has (finally) resigned...
- after the recall petition filed by C. Chilove, the President of CIMRWA, Laurel Cremant, President-Elect, and Diana Neal, Treasurer, was certified and
- after every major publisher pulled out of RWA Nationals
- Executive Director Carol Ritter also resigned, except according to RWA’s January 9 statement, she’s staying on to assist with transition to new leadership.
Overall, to some extent, it seems a growing pressure has finally released a bit.
That pressure didn’t need to build as much as it did. All of this, from the ethics censure of Courtney Milan to every instance of discrimination and occlusion could have been addressed two weeks ago. So things are sort of resolved: we got the first thing we asked for (repeatedly) which was that Suede step down and the leadership take some responsibility for the mess. They sort of did, and I think that is part of what makes this semi-resolution so unsatisfying for me.
There’s a lot of “sort of” in the RWA statement, too. There’s the continued presence of many of the people who contributed to the mess in the first place, such as remaining board members who were appointed by Suede, coupled with the onomatopology (term coined by author NPR host Linda Holmes) which doesn’t do nearly enough to address the valid concerns of the membership. I’m exhausted from mishegas that didn’t need to become as bad as it did, and dispirited as I ponder the next step.
Also: it is a lot easier to convince a publisher NOT to spend money than it is to convince them to spend money. So the loss of publisher participation and sponsorship is a BFD to the conference, the organization, and the future of writers who relied on RWA’s advocacy on their behalf when dealing with those same publishers.
TL;DR: still a big, big mess.
So. What’s next? The big question!
Where does RWA go from here?
Disclaimer: I do not have an answer. Sorry. While I enjoy a satisfying resolution as much the next reader, I don’t know what will happen. I’m not on the RWA board, and I’m a member existing in the weird professional space of author/also reviewer/kinda sometimes press. So my perspective is skewed a bit.
However, one thing that has happened as I’ve grown older and had myriad professional responsibilities is that I have a lot more experience in working with and for nonprofits, and know a lot of people who do that work in various fields.
And while discussing the destruction of RWA’s reputation over the past two weeks with people who aren’t part of the community, I was asked this question: Who does the organization serve?
That question is referenced in the RWA onomatopology released yesterday:
We know we have a lot more work to do to restore the trust we have lost – and we are going to do whatever it takes to get there so that we can focus on the mission of this organization: to promote the professional and common business interests of romance writers. Our goal is to ensure the successful future of this association so it can be an even stronger, better and more inclusive professional home and advocate for romance authors.
We hope you will join us – collaboratively and productively – in rebuilding an RWA that serves its diverse and talented members well into the future. We believe this community is worth saving. (Emphasis mine.)
I see a very large and tangled problem with that goal, to rebuild RWA into a “professional home and advocate for romance authors…that serves its diverse and talented members.”
Whom does RWA serve specifically?
“Diverse and talented romance authors” is not clear enough as a definition.
Is RWA serving current members, or does it wish to serve potential new or returning members?
Is RWA serving the membership paid up currently or is the organization trying to make the community and culture more welcoming for those who aren’t yet members, and those who left and may return?
(NB: I just wrote “membershit” as a typo and I can’t tell you how tempted I was to keep it.)
Whom does RWA serve?
Identifying the audience isn’t just for writing; nonprofits have to figure out their audience or community. And identifying that community is as difficult as it is to change the community being served, especially when an organization must change to survive.
Add to that question the following: the current members are the ones who have funded what presently exists. Future members aren’t members, so they haven’t paid dues. Former members who may have left because they disagreed with the way the organization was run? Same thing. The past and present are funded by the current members, who also want to dictate the future.
In other words, if an organization wants to change, current members often represent the past, the status quo, or perhaps the opposite of that change.
People who aren’t members, and a portion of the current membership, might represent the future, the wished-for changes, the possibility that hasn’t happened yet.
Setting aside the question of leadership for a moment (and again, the current RWA board should be removed and re-elected in its entirety) it’s important to ask over and over: whom does this organization serve?
Who is the priority?
Because it cannot be both.
If RWA serves the current membership of RWA, well, that membership contains a substantial number of people who:
- openly embrace and promote racist ideologies
- post on RWA Facebook pages and in internal message boards about their homophobia and racist views on people of color
- write transphobic and racist articles for and letters to the Romance Writers Report
- …and I could keep going but it’s depressing.
A substantial part of the current membership of RWA is a substantial part of the problem with RWA.
If the organization wants to serve any marginalized writers, it can’t also serve that portion of the current membership. It’s impossible. One side has demonstrated in PAN forums, email messages, and social media posts that it refuses to recognize the humanity of the other, and refuses to recognize their culpability in maintaining a White supremacist, classist, heteronormative, racist culture inside RWA. Nor can it commit to changing that culture.
The organization also can’t serve marginalized writers if the leadership has a documented history of not acknowledging ethics complaints from marginalized individuals, and of publishing and allowing screeds against those individuals in print and online. RWA can’t serve anyone if the organization doesn’t fully reveal what happened in the specific case of the ethics complaint and process against Courtney Milan, and what happened to the complaints from every writer who has reported a problem.
RWA can’t maintain its current membership nor its leadership and at the same time say it’s going to rebuild. Rebuilding requires people in leadership positions who are trusted by current and prospective members. And it requires trust in fellow members of the community.
As Olivia Waite and others have pointed out, the January 9 statement from RWA was a word assemblage that scarcely resembled the appropriate level of apology, acknowledgement, and intent to act. It lists as next steps several actions they’ve already performed multiple times. More consultants, more town halls, more discussions are not going to fix RWA.
If RWA wants to rebuild, the organization has to decide who it serves. And as Audre Lorde wrote, “For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.”
RWA has demonstrated over the past two weeks, and the past several decades, with many examples, who it has NOT served, including but not limited to:
- Black writers
- South Asian writers
- Asian writers
- Latinx writers
- Disabled writers
- Neurodivergent writers
- Jewish writers
- Muslim writers
- Queer Writers
- Nonbinary writers
- Transgender writers
- Multiracial writers
- Native and Indigenous writers
Who has RWA protected and served?
- White writers
- Christian writers
- Heterosexual writers
- Cis-gendered writers
So who is RWA going to serve now?
As I said, I don’t know the answer to the question. But I do have requests for clarity regarding the January 9 statement.
“We hope you will join us in rebuilding RWA”
Rebuild what, exactly? Rebuild what and for whom? Rebuild the racist, discriminatory parts with additional discussions and consultants? If the past two weeks have partially dismantled (if not destroyed) RWA’s reputation and standing, what will we rebuild, if we rebuild with what’s left? Is there a foundation worth saving? I don’t think so. I think it’s got mold, termites, and asbestos beyond remediation.
“We believe this community is worth saving.”
Which community, specifically?
The community which had to fight to get RWA to respond appropriately to egregious abuses of power? That community isn’t in danger. It demonstrated its strength already.
The community that made so many people feel unsafe and unwelcome? That community has made it clear that RWA can’t serve everyone.
RWA can’t serve a large portion of its current membership and have a future that includes marginalized writers. Genuine change is not possible if the organization can’t identify and articulate who it serves and prioritizes, and then address and rectify the harm it has done.
In the absence of a clear statement of who RWA serves, it is left to the individual members, current, returning, or new, to ask who RWA serves, and if RWA serves them.
Thank you all for the feedback, I’ve turned the letter into a petition and am reaching out to people for signal boosts, if they are so inclined.
I understand that petitions do not usually change minds or influence policy, but the purpose of this is first and foremost to signal to the authors that the readership stands with them, and secondly to give those of us following the collapse of the RWA a place to add our voice.
Provided you agree with the content and intent of the letter, you can add your name here: http://chng.it/5Sp2fCFc
As a reader, who has “discovered” diverse authors and books with diverse characters in recent years and now seeks them out, I have been following this issue carefully. I’ve been reading romance for literally decades and realize now how terrible some of those early ones were. I’m hoping that the result will benefit all authors in future supportive organizations, be they a renewed RWA or perhaps a totally new group rising out of the RWA ashes.
I was deeply involved in a completely different non-profit that went through a not-dissimilar set of circumstances.
We knew that we had problems – some were even foundational, but we were pretty confident that we had identified a number of the bigger ones, most of which would take time to fix. We were putting in the effort and making progress. We thought that if we kept up our efforts, then our day-to-day work would give us the time to solve those problems and keep going and getting better.
And then someone did something profoundly stupid. And all of those deep rooted problems made everything worse. And we were out of time to fix them and we had to struggle to figure out how to keep the day-to-day stuff going, much less the deeper issues, and there was nothing left to stop new stuff from coming and new issues from forming.
I think I get why it took and is taking “so long” for the RWA to do something – from the outside, it looks like everyone is stalling. From the inside, it feels like everything is going too fast. If you have not decided to leave (yet), then you’re scrambling to get information on that’s spotty and hard to get at. You go from trying to think “what is the best thing to say?” to “what is a good thing to say?” to “what can we say that won’t make things even worse?” And you are trying to make and three sets of plans at once, the ones to keep the lights on, the plans to dim them (but keep something going) until you figure out what happens next, and the plans to shut everything down – because shutting down a non-profit (especially ones with the assets of RWA) is a huge and complicated endeavor.
Based on that experience, I have low hopes of success for the RWA being successful in defining and then changing their audience before time runs out. Their problems are too entrenched; the money will run out before the solution gets in place. I also wish the best of luck to anyone who is trying to build something new. Starting up a non-profit is not as easy and straightforward as it would seem to be.
I joined RWA last year when I was getting serious about presenting myself as a writer. I really don’t feel like I can renew. I’m a middle-class white woman who lived in the South for 22 years and was steeped in racist BS. I really didn’t even recognize how bad it was until I was almost thirty, working in a law office, and faced with the fact that a black co-worker was paid less than a white one with less experience, less talent, and worse behavior. Not long after that I moved to Los Angeles, and there is still racist BS here in California but the cities tend to attract people who want to get away from it.
Anyway, I’m going to keep watching because I can’t help seeing a parallel to another organization I used to belong to. USA Dance is the governing body of amateur DanceSport in the US and is a member of the Olympic Committee. It’s been trying since the 1960s to get ballroom dancing into the Olympic Games, and it has failed over and over because it can’t make up its mind whether it represents social dancers or athletes.
Along the way, however – and not without conflict – it has evolved from an organization serving mostly older, straight, white, middle- and upper-class people who *only* do ballroom dancing, to serving a much broader population of dancers. A competitive “couple” may now be any gender, not only M/F. Hip-hop and breakdancing and wheelchair dance are acknowledged branches of DanceSport. The number of people of color engaging in the sport is rising – but here’s the catch.
Many of those changes were driven not by the management but by the membership. People who watched DWTS and said “well heck there is a black guy doing that” or “well heck there is a girl without a leg” or “well heck there is a gay figure skater kicking everybody’s ass” and thought “I can do that too.” What we need is a romance writer’s organization that does not wait to be pushed. One that says right there on the masthead and the banner and the front door, “Do you write love stories? Then please step inside and tell us what we can do for you.”
chacha1 wrote: What we need is a romance writer’s organization that does not wait to be pushed. One that says right there on the masthead and the banner and the front door, “Do you write love stories? Then please step inside and tell us what we can do for you.”
This dovetails beautifully with Susy K’s “Romantic Stories Guild” idea!
@Carolyn: I really like the masthead question proposal!!!
Re: my suggestion about including readers: OK, I understand about making an organization about just writers (& maybe editors (who are actually writers, too)). I threw the idea of including readers ONLY because some readers have some fantastic ideas, but can’t carry them out due to skill &/or time constraints or other obligations. Perhaps a sibling organization for readers, where they could go for suggestions, reviews, and just storytalk. Yes, there are plenty of places for storytalk now (including here at SBTB) but to somewhat connect readers with authors could also be beneficial.
I threw the idea of including readers ONLY because some readers have some fantastic ideas, but can’t carry them out due to skill &/or time constraints or other obligations.>
@Suzy K,they may have fantastic ideas but pitching them to authors and asking authors to write them only leads to a massive tangle in terms of credits, rights, and royalties, as well as a pile of hurt feelings if the reader does not get their name on the work or if the story does not turn out the way they expected or wanted. I once knew an author (name withheld) who did this – she would ask a fan to “collaborate” with her, then cut them out of the finished product completely. It was a scummy thing to do but because you can’t copyright ideas, she held all the cards. TLDR, it’s a lovely idea but in practice it never goes well.
[…] web site Smart Bitches, Trashy Books used “onomatopology” (sometimes spelled “onomatapology”— as far as SorryWatch is concerned, both are […]
Thank you for this analytic—and heartfelt—look to the future.
My experience is that the romance novels that are written from an anti-oppression value set are just better reads. More life, more craft, less DNF.
I’m really hoping the industry can whole-scale address the places (and people within it) that have harbored oppression, and then do much better going forward.
And for anyone who writes any form of romance that crosses over with sci-fi, fantasy, horror/occult, etc, SFWA (Speculative Fiction Writers of America) has the door open for you. They’ve already been through a couple of rounds of fighting the white racist “old guard”, and reduced that lot to a bunch of sad puppies whimpering in the corner about how “the libs” are so mean.
@EC Spurlock: I get it. and you are right. I sometimes tend not to think of challenges like that. I guess I still live in a world of fairy tales, unicorns and HEAs!!
[…] Just when you thought the Romance Writers of America brouhaha couldn’t escalate further, this week happened. Directors Damon Suede and Carol Ritter have gone. And things have got so serious the RITAs, the leading Romance awards with 3 decades of history, have been cancelled this year. This comes after last year the judges issued an apology that no persons of colour or LGBTQ+ writers were among the finalists. And one cannot help notice a certain parallel to the Oscar announcements this week. A thorough and fascinating summary of where things are and where they might go comes from the always-insightful Sma…. […]
Good post SB Sarah! Lots of other great comments as well. When I read the outline of what all happened the actions that went against bylaws and procedures was numerous and eyebrow raising. Even some of the comments/procedures mentioned did not reflect what I normally expect with not-for-profit, though as I’m not a member or writer, I have no experience with their bylaws other than what I’ve read here and there through this debacle. If they were so quick to act in this manner in this situation, when else have they acted against their bylaws?
Now to the future of RWA… Those who were upset, knew the actions were wrong, needed to make a stand statement, did not feel they could be part of an organization with blatant and subtle racism and inclusion issues… well a large part have left, or are waiting for the membership to expire with plans to not renew. Who is left to steer the ship to a better and brighter inclusive future? Probably not the people who would be needed to make the changes, the people that feel strongly about inclusion and have the vision to see what the issues are and a plan that helps eliminate bigotry and gatekeeping in the RTA. The question also begs to be asked, is there a need for this organization? Are some of the benefits that the org in the past helped with met through other avenues? Off hand, I think of networking, and given the many qroups and avenues to network via social media is this benefit still relevant? On the other, the RWA was very diligent in the plagiarism scandal last year. Could this issue have been resolved in the same manner without the RWA? Hard to know, but worth contemplating. Which yet again brings us to your question SB Sarah, “who will they serve?” needs to be asked in conjunction with how relevant they are to today’s writer. Take away the RITA and the conference (which is what has happened) what are they offering to authors?
Woah woah woah, they actually made Damon Suede president? That yahoo? OMG, that is hysterical! Can I just say reading about this glorious train wreck in Jezebel… (with a quick follow up here at SB of course because your guys still keep it real). Let me just say STUNNING! Bravo, that’s amazing. ALL OF IT!
PS…Please! Someone here at SB write a book about all of this. I will pay good money for an insider dirt, dirty, dirty, majorly gossip laden view of the final fall of RWA. The pig always gives money to those who do the real work.
Woah woah woah, they actually made Damon Suede president? That yahoo? OMG, that is hysterical! Can I just say reading about this glorious train wreck in Jezebel… (with a quick follow up here at SB of course because your guys still keep it real). Let me just say STUNNING! Bravo, that’s amazing. ALL OF IT!
PS…Please! Someone here at SB write a book about all of this. I will pay good money for an insider dirt, dirty, dirty, majorly gossip laden view of the final fall of RWA. The pig always gives money to those who do the lord’s work.
@Teddypig – too late, Chuck Tingle has already released “Not Pounded By Romance Wranglers Of America Because Their New Leadership Is From The Depths Of The Endless Cosmic Void “.
I’m still appalled and flabbergasted and all other words to that effect at the sheer gall and audacity of RWA’s board and those who filed the complaint.
First, they sneakily punished an outspoken WOC because of trumped up offences filed by people who got their feelings hurt because of truth bombs said WOC dropped on them. Then when the public got wind of it, they backpedaled and unceremoniously lifted the sanctions, as if saying – here, we’re no longer punishing you for hurting our feelings with your facts, you should be grateful. No apologies. No admission of wrongdoing. What an unscrupulous bunch of turd buckets.
Then, the people who filed the complaints claim they’ve been heavily encouraged by RWA to lodge the complaints. Are they imbeciles with no capacity to think for themselves? They are full grown adults, they knew they’re allegations have no merit, they consciously exaggerated the “damages” they’ve suffered. They were the ones who decided to proceed with the complaints. No matter how much they had been “encouraged”, they were the ones who followed through with it in an act of vindictiveness. They had an expectation of impunity and now they’re being called out, being held accountable, they are suddenly poor little innocent victims. No. Just, no.
And fucking Damon Suede. He knew he wasn’t qualified to even be anywhere near the presidency. But no, he held on ’til the last possible moment; ’til there really was no other apparent option than to step down.
Also, whoever vetted him for the position. Fuck them. Obviously they knew he would be good for whatever agenda they had and so did only the bare minimum of checking.
There are so many layers of disgusting behavior here, I feel dirty just reading about it.
I read romance because I love happy endings and fluffy feelings and all the good things. I am shattered that the institution supposed to be taking care of romance authors, our purveyors of joy, is mired in this kind of filthy, dirty, politics.
[…] TO THE FUTURE. Sarah at Smart Bitches, Trashy Books tells why it’s hard to answer the question “Where Does RWA Go From Here?” (January […]
In light of this debacle, I found this article fascinating:
https://catapult.co/stories/women-of-color-chief-diversity-officers-cannot-fix-racist-company-culture-nadia-owusu
Brief summary for the TL;DR crowd: Plenty of organizations pay lip service to the concept of diversity, but when push comes to shove, they really don’t want to change.
Every time I come back to RWA thinking it will be useful resource, it’s in another kerfluffle. Since I want to be and support Indie romance writers (I can’t afford the books from my fav’s who have gone mainstream), this feels like the last time I need to check. Clearly this website and others out there have more to offer.
Somehow, author groups/organizations getting into trouble seems to be normal. As that’s a bigger concern, I wonder why that’s so? Any ideas?
[…] (If you want to learn more about past events, the SBTB blog has good summaries at https://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/2019/12/wtaf-rwa-courtney-milan-banned-suspended-from-rwa/ and https://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/2020/01/where-does-rwa-go-from-here/.) […]