https://twitter.com/amywestervelt/status/1316923479011303424
From what I read, I still don't know what happened (I don't care, either); but, the discussion on Twitter is so devoid of details that nothing can be learned or obtained from it, except that the person now cancelled seems to come from a different generation and that there have been numerous things that need to be changed about scripts, or something, and that she's generally pretty okay with it, if a bit difficult - but then, if a script you write, or whatever, has experienced a death by thousands of cuts where the implication of story decisions are continuously assumed to be, or explained how they could be interpreted as malicious when they weren't intended that way, that could get a bit tiring and one's tolerances might get weak.
Everybody continuously needs another dose of empathy. Everybody.
Again, I have no opinion on the matter, I don't know any of these people. Everyone seems to be painted in a bad light in this story (not just the twitter post) and the Amy Westervelt just seems trapped in the middle of it all, attempting to be very diplomatic about everything.
0. Roost has a history of having some racial blind spots in their field
1. Roost emails Sojwal to submit something that wasn't really what Sojwal was looking for, more or less as already made clear through public info.
2. Sojwal rejects rudely in frustration
3. Roost responds rudely, lacking contextual awareness
4. Sojwal responds in turn
....
5. Roost goes and complains about the rude rejection
6. Sojwal gets mad about this complaint out of context
7. Roost digs in and then attempts to report to Twitter
Step 0 and Step 7 are the keys here it seems, and Westervelt added a lot of important context for me. This was a straw that broke the camel's back for Roost it appears, not an isolated incident. Reporting someone on twitter for a personal spat at best from a misunderstanding is not putting Roost in any sort of decent light, and her prior context doesn't appear to have earned her any goodwill.
I know nothing of either until reading this either. I suspect Sojwal's response was anger out of frustration. Rude, absolutely. But I think reading what the org is about [2] really sheds light that it would be clear this isn't an outlet looking to publish stuff from Roost. If Roost read that before responding and took a second, this response [3] would probably have not been a good idea. While the original rejection is rude, I actually don't see the "assumptions" that Roost is trying to defend, and that backhanded apology isn't going to sit well with anyone. She didn't even need to apologize, but the apology + you're wrong about me (along with the submitted piece's perspective) doesn't look good. And then that's where the prior history comes in for the dominos after.
Roost had many points they could have dropped this at and didn't, which seems to me like it was a common issue from Westervelt's thread. Westervelt doesn't seem to be caught to me so much as disappointed in a friend they were trying to help, who seemed to just refuse to learn. Both, but more disappointment than posturing.
To be clear, this is far from cut and dry and I can very much understand why there are so many confused or hesitant commenters. It took me a decent deal of digging and nuance to get this picture of what happened. This all could have been avoided, and this 100% seems to be twitter drama that escalated needlessly, and certainly may be reflective of some negative parts of this world we're getting a glimpse into that an article like this could have critiqued with nuance. But to me, the issue is far from what this piece seems to diagnose. To make this about cancel culture and the title, "White Women Need Not Apply", misses the point, just as Roost did with what originally went wrong.
[1] https://twitter.com/senti_narwhal/status/1316379426892984320
[2] https://aaww.org/about-us/
[3] https://twitter.com/senti_narwhal/status/1316379426892984320...
Westervelt noticed problems with Roost but tried to gently correct those and give her second chances.
Westervelt noticed problems that were recurring: that is, even after being nudged and given a second chance, Roost made the same mistakes more than once.
Roost now does something that ended up being very public. Now, finally, conveniently, Westervelt decides this is the last straw, and cuts her loose.
I'm not saying Roost is a saint, or that Westervelt is being disingenuous. In general, people try to do the best they can with the information they have at the time. But I think it likely that Westervelt's decision was also influenced by the fact that this storm was public and heated, and if she'd done nothing, that might have blown back on her. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but let's at least acknowledge that's what could have (and IMO probably) happened.