Accused of racial bias at work by someone, and I feel sick over it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, don’t be the white lady who weaponizes her tears when accused of racial bias. It’s tiresome.

Use this as an opportunity to reflect. Yes, she misheard you. I’m sure you had no ill intent, but intent is separate from impact. Let’s look at the facts— you prioritized the words of a white man over the LEAD AUTHOR of the paper. The lead author who is 1) a woman and 2) a POC. It’s a bad look, OP. As a marketing professional, if this never occurred to you when writing the piece, then that is a pretty huge blind spot. Stop crying and being defensive. Be a grown up and own up to your mistake here and use it as a growth opportunity.

+1000

Even if the lead author wasn't a woman of color, not representing the LEAD AUTHOR in the piece was a big misstep. Even if the lead author had been a soft spoken white man this would be a problem. Some people (of all races) have different styles - may not be as immediately quotable off the cuff. A follow-up email or interview, or whatever was needed to make it a more balanced pieces seems like it would have been a good idea.

OP should learn from this.

OP said they were described to her as co-authors. I don't know enough about that space to know if OP had a responsibility to figure out who was who, but she didn't know the woman was the lead author.

But I do agree that this is a learning experience. Your mistake was that you let the white man do all the talking and get all the quotes.

If she’s worked in academia more that five minutes she’d know that is a major, major distinction and I hope she has an email somewhere explicitly saying “co-author” otherwise that is probably some racial bias.

[Anonymous]

OP's failures:
- To determine who was the lead author. Does not rise to level of racism, but is a serious professional failing.
- In the absence of knowing who the lead author was (ie she should have at least assumed they were equal co-authors), failing to give them equal space in the article. There's a reasonable inference to be made that OP gave the man more time because of unconscious gender or racial bias.

[Anonymous]

where's OP? 3 days and 12 pages later still not a peep?

t r o l l ?

[Anonymous]

I would have done the same thing most likely, but I think it's always good practice to send a draft first, especially when two people are involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP's failures:
- To determine who was the lead author. Does not rise to level of racism, but is a serious professional failing.
- In the absence of knowing who the lead author was (ie she should have at least assumed they were equal co-authors), failing to give them equal space in the article. There's a reasonable inference to be made that OP gave the man more time because of unconscious gender or racial bias.

Not sure I agree. Being Lead author is a huge deal in academia; it's the two authors who should have made that clear from the start.

If nothing has been shared, you typically assume it's the oldest person, because s/he has had more years to write and publish papers.

I'd assume "ageism" before gender or racial bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP's failures:
- To determine who was the lead author. Does not rise to level of racism, but is a serious professional failing.
- In the absence of knowing who the lead author was (ie she should have at least assumed they were equal co-authors), failing to give them equal space in the article. There's a reasonable inference to be made that OP gave the man more time because of unconscious gender or racial bias.

Not sure I agree. Being Lead author is a huge deal in academia; it's the two authors who should have made that clear from the start.

If nothing has been shared, you typically assume it's the oldest person, because s/he has had more years to write and publish papers.

I'd assume "ageism" before gender or racial bias.

I would assume ageism only if the people were of the same race and gender. Misogyny in higher Ed is rampant, and anti-Asian bias perhaps moreso. Ageism is less the concern that that very specific environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:where's OP? 3 days and 12 pages later still not a peep?

t r o l l ?

Crying, per her OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You should’ve shut the co-author down and intentionally solicited comments from the soft-spoken lead author. An apology is warranted and you should feel sick.

<soft spoken co-author has just joined the chat>

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP's failures:
- To determine who was the lead author. Does not rise to level of racism, but is a serious professional failing.
- In the absence of knowing who the lead author was (ie she should have at least assumed they were equal co-authors), failing to give them equal space in the article. There's a reasonable inference to be made that OP gave the man more time because of unconscious gender or racial bias.

Not sure I agree. Being Lead author is a huge deal in academia; it's the two authors who should have made that clear from the start.

If nothing has been shared, you typically assume it's the oldest person, because s/he has had more years to write and publish papers.

I'd assume "ageism" before gender or racial bias.

I would assume ageism only if the people were of the same race and gender. Misogyny in higher Ed is rampant, and anti-Asian bias perhaps moreso. Ageism is less the concern that that very specific environment.

Ageism in academia means favoring the old over the young just given age, and it looks like the most plausible scenario here.

You're right that anti-Asian bias is rampant but that's more often an admissions thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should’ve shut the co-author down and intentionally solicited comments from the soft-spoken lead author. An apology is warranted and you should feel sick.

<soft spoken co-author has just joined the chat>

I assume soft spoken people aren't willing to take the risk of sounding stupid, so don't speak up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I completely disagree with PP. You should ask to speak to Asian American woman directly. It sounds like she is upset not only with the incorrect statement but how she feels she was treated during the interview. It can be exhausting for soft spoken women of any race that have to compete for space with their louder male colleagues and in this day and age, sophisticated professionals should be able to see that and mitigate it where necessary. That means speaking to the woman as much as speaking to the man regardless of how loud the man is. You need to apologize for that part at least and do better next time.

To be clear, I disagree with the people who say to ignore it, clearly when your clients are telling you that it caused it a huge problem. I don’t understand why ignoring is even suggested, honestly. It’s so easy to find people to do your job that wont ignore those sorts of issues.

I wouldn't reach out directly, but the rest of that statement is valuable advice. It's your job to draw out the soft spoken person during the interview. Instead you took the easy route of letting the loud male get all the attention. The female was probably used to it and just shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should’ve shut the co-author down and intentionally solicited comments from the soft-spoken lead author. An apology is warranted and you should feel sick.

<soft spoken co-author has just joined the chat>

Soft spoken author was trying to speak but op didn't listen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should’ve shut the co-author down and intentionally solicited comments from the soft-spoken lead author. An apology is warranted and you should feel sick.

<soft spoken co-author has just joined the chat>

Don’t you mean lead researcher? Interesting slip.

[Anonymous]

OP, do not talk to the female co-author. She's trouble and will make your life hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should’ve shut the co-author down and intentionally solicited comments from the soft-spoken lead author. An apology is warranted and you should feel sick.

<soft spoken co-author has just joined the chat>

Soft spoken author was trying to speak but op didn't listen.

Soft spoken author should select better co-authors or simply stop b÷tching. If she cannot fix her own selected team why should OP