New at Rosetta Stones: Wherein I’m #standingwithDNLee

So this thing happened where the editor of a sciencey sorta website *cough Biology Online cough* decided it would be hi-larious to call a black woman an urban whore for refusing to write for his shit for free. Punchline? She’s a SciAm blogger, and SciAm won’t stand with her.

I have a thing or dozen to say about that.

I’m ashamed to be a SciAm blogger right now. But I’m proud to be #standingwithDNLee.

New at Rosetta Stones: Wherein I’m #standingwithDNLee

10 thoughts on “New at Rosetta Stones: Wherein I’m #standingwithDNLee

  1. 1

    Well fucking said, Dana! Unless there’s been major miscommunication here, SciAm’s behavior is simply indefensible. They’d better deal with this, pronto.

    I particularly loved the last line of your Rosetta Stones post. It would be great to see someone in science actually get fired for outrageously sexist and racist behavior. For a change.

  2. 2

    What are these people thinking? The on-line editor asks DNLee for a favor, gets politely turned down, and gives her a gratuitous insult. Then SciAm censors her firm but non-ranting response to his insult. The only one who remains classy is DNLee.

  3. 3

    Well, I put SciAm Blogs in my RSS feed because of Rosetta Stones, and haven’t seen a lot of fascinating stuff (to me!) out of any other blog there. Because I get all Rosetta Stones news through this blog right here, it’s going to be no big loss to me to take SciAm blogs back out of my feed.

    Besides, I already allowed my subscription to the hardcopy SciAm magazine lapse due to Michael Shermer. I probably never should have connected with the blogs to begin with.

  4. rq

    I’m shocked at the plain unprofessionalism of the on-line editor. It’s like asking someone for a job interview, and they turn you down, and you call them names because… that’s what you do when you’re turned down professionally? And then you go to meetings, and people don’t like your ideas, you throw yourself to the floor kicking and screaming and swearing? I’m surprised at the completely illogical thought process there. I can understand being upset, but you don’t turn personal in a professional situation like this.
    And of course, SciAm’s attitude towards the unprofessional employee (who is not, by any stretch of the imagination, DNLee), is unforgiveable and confusing, as well. They should be punishing the unprofessional behaviour, and swiftly, and surely.
    I’m disappointed with SciAm.

  5. 5


    It would be great to see someone in science actually get fired for outrageously sexist and racist behavior.

    I don’t rally know if these people are in science, but they are definitely in publishing, and seeing some of them get nailed for their behavior would be appropriately satisfying as well.

  6. 6

    When are people going to learn that sweeping things like this under the rug just doesn’t work anymore? The word will get out, anyway.

    Obviously, SciAm owns the blog, and can manage it any way they see fit, but this accomplishes nothing other than to make them look bad. They will lose good people if they keep it up.

    And as for the guy at Biology Online – what a jerk!

  7. 8

    Ms. DiChristina has now posted an updated response, blaming among other things a “dying phone.”

    She claims she was attempting to verify information. There was obviously time to consult legal staff, there was also time to compose a tweet explaining the attempt at verification instead of the general and generally unsatisfying explanation she composed.

    Thank you for standing up, Dana. I note your post remains on their blog roll, so I hope the right thing will be done by SciAm.

Comments are closed.