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

[Anonymous]

Op, please hire me to represent you. I love wrecking these Complainants who insist on seeing racism/sexism/---ism anytime they get an outcome they don't like.

[Anonymous]

It will probably blow over.

I don't think it was racial bias necessarily but perhaps more gender bias. If you wanted to hear more from the lady then you should have directly asked her the questions. Interviewers do this all the time when they want quotes from all parties.

Also the way you phrased, "I don't want to not hear you" ... Wtf, very confusing for English speakers let alone someone who may speak multiple languages. Why couldn't you simply say, "I want to hear from both of you".

You messed up and you should apologize for the sake of professionalism but make it clear that it was not racial bias and you did not mean to shut the lady down. Your phrasing was misunderstood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will probably blow over.

I don't think it was racial bias necessarily but perhaps more gender bias. If you wanted to hear more from the lady then you should have directly asked her the questions. Interviewers do this all the time when they want quotes from all parties.

Also the way you phrased, "I don't want to not hear you" ... Wtf, very confusing for English speakers let alone someone who may speak multiple languages. Why couldn't you simply say, "I want to hear from both of you".

You messed up and you should apologize for the sake of professionalism but make it clear that it was not racial bias and you did not mean to shut the lady down. Your phrasing was misunderstood.

It's both racial and gender bias. It may be implicit, but it is what it is. Going forward, just be more aware.

[Anonymous]

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

Found the misogynist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op, please hire me to represent you. I love wrecking these Complainants who insist on seeing racism/sexism/---ism anytime they get an outcome they don't like.

Represent her to whom? Sounds like another costly mistake from the OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op, please hire me to represent you. I love wrecking these Complainants who insist on seeing racism/sexism/---ism anytime they get an outcome they don't like.

Prove what you can do and you'll get a million cases.

Heck, you can become a trillionaire

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, please hire me to represent you. I love wrecking these Complainants who insist on seeing racism/sexism/---ism anytime they get an outcome they don't like.

Prove what you can do and you'll get a million cases.

Heck, you can become a trillionaire

Except there’s nothing here but someone mad that their poor work was pointed out and— maybe— incorrect motives given for it.

If OP had written a good piece without leaving out the lead researcher, and the lead researcher had suggested she had been motivated by racial bias, then there might be room to wonder about them. As it is the OP made very basic errors, and wants everyone to assume it was because she was lazy, vs racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Found the misogynist.

Has nothing to do with her sex, but she's already making trouble where there's no issue.

[Anonymous]

This type of thing is very upsetting, I understand.
Thank goodness you have that tape. (I assume you had permission to tape or it is legal in your state).

With your colleague's permission, I would be tempted to talk to the woman. Say you are very sorry that the conversation left her upset. Compliment the paper. Explain the misunderstanding. (That you immediately played the tape when you heard about the issue, and realized the misunderstanding. Ask gently if she would like to hear it).

Also, did you give the content experts a chance to review the draft? Journalists often don't do this, but PR people should. Especially if you quote them.

There was some fault on her. part Did you not have the paper in advance? Can't imagine you would skip that step and just base your writing on the author's take. If you had the paper, you should have known she is the first author (and therefore did most of the work). So, you should have favored her take on it's import/content.

Her style could be cultural or age-related. She needs to work on that, because older men who like to hear themselves talk are a ongoing presence in academia.

Lesson learned all around, but I do not think that you were at all malicious...just a little unconscious (about letting the louder voice steal your attention, instead of the spokesperson who had actually earned it).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will probably blow over.

I don't think it was racial bias necessarily but perhaps more gender bias. If you wanted to hear more from the lady then you should have directly asked her the questions. Interviewers do this all the time when they want quotes from all parties.

Also the way you phrased, "I don't want to not hear you" ... Wtf, very confusing for English speakers let alone someone who may speak multiple languages. Why couldn't you simply say, "I want to hear from both of you".

You messed up and you should apologize for the sake of professionalism but make it clear that it was not racial bias and you did not mean to shut the lady down. Your phrasing was misunderstood.

If you consider yourself progressive, with regard to gender issues....lose the label "lady." It is an anachronism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This type of thing is very upsetting, I understand.
Thank goodness you have that tape. (I assume you had permission to tape or it is legal in your state).

With your colleague's permission, I would be tempted to talk to the woman. Say you are very sorry that the conversation left her upset. Compliment the paper. Explain the misunderstanding. (That you immediately played the tape when you heard about the issue, and realized the misunderstanding. Ask gently if she would like to hear it).

Also, did you give the content experts a chance to review the draft? Journalists often don't do this, but PR people should. Especially if you quote them.

There was some fault on her. part Did you not have the paper in advance? Can't imagine you would skip that step and just base your writing on the author's take. If you had the paper, you should have known she is the first author (and therefore did most of the work). So, you should have favored her take on it's import/content.

Her style could be cultural or age-related. She needs to work on that, because older men who like to hear themselves talk are a ongoing presence in academia.

Lesson learned all around, but I do not think that you were at all malicious...just a little unconscious (about letting the louder voice steal your attention, instead of the spokesperson who had actually earned it).

In other words, at best OP isn't racist or sexist, just not very good at her job.

[Anonymous]

Why are so many posters assuming the woman is not proficient in English? OP described her as "Asian American" not "Japanese" or "Korean" or Vietnamese."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Found the misogynist.

Has nothing to do with her sex, but she's already making trouble where there's no issue.

There absolutely is an issue: OP did shoddy work. The author absolutely should have pointed out the shoddy work since 1. It reflects on her personally since she’s in the piece and 2. It reflects on the university who pays OP.

Pointing out bad work isn’t “making trouble”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Found the misogynist.

Has nothing to do with her sex, but she's already making trouble where there's no issue.

There absolutely is an issue: OP did shoddy work. The author absolutely should have pointed out the shoddy work since 1. It reflects on her personally since she’s in the piece and 2. It reflects on the university who pays OP.

Pointing out bad work isn’t “making trouble”.

She didn't "point out bad work." She made false accusations and LIED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Found the misogynist.

Has nothing to do with her sex, but she's already making trouble where there's no issue.

There absolutely is an issue: OP did shoddy work. The author absolutely should have pointed out the shoddy work since 1. It reflects on her personally since she’s in the piece and 2. It reflects on the university who pays OP.

Pointing out bad work isn’t “making trouble”.

I agree. Think about it from her perspective: You're on a team of two people; you're the senior person. You do a call with an outside marketing person. Your junior colleague talks over you the whole call, which is something that is very difficult to control or counter. No one ever sends you the release; it goes out to the public. It refers to you as "co-authors" (which you can stomach) but proceeds to quote him 5 times and you once. I'd be pissed, go to the admin person who was responsible for liaising with the marketing company and complain. I would probably also say something to my admin about "this is so typical of the racism and sexism that is endemic in academia." Because it actually is typical of the racism and sexism that is endemic in academia.

To those saying it was on the author to speak up.... yeesh way to victim blame. Even Supreme Court justices, who are literal experts in advocating their positions with force, are statistically talked over and interrupted exponentially more than their male colleagues. They are interrupted by their male colleagues and even by the people who are speaking before the court. If Sotomayor can't control mansplaining, why would you expect a random academic, who's job involves almost no public speaking or advocacy, to be able to manage that dynamic?