Dear President Boatwright, VP Barbara Gold, and Executive Director Helen Cullyer:

We write as co-chairs of the Women’s Classical Caucus to express our support for those who have been historically and currently marginalized in our profession. The racist events at the recent SCS meeting brought us face to face with the reality of what we often say we know: the field is still predominantly white, and racism finds ways to flourish within its whiteness. Moreover, as others have already pointed out, the hotels where we hold our meetings subtly signal that they are meant for people of a ‘certain type’, and thus are complicit in reinforcing the historical racist and classist exclusivity of our field. Contact on this issue before the meetings might help to ensure sensitivity in the hotel staff, which of course SCS can’t control.

The WCC sees its role as twofold: to clean up our own house, and to pressure/help the SCS to change. Some suggestions for the latter:

As the WCC has been saying for at least three years now (since 2016), the organization should have a designated safety officer, or ombudsperson. It seems best that this person should be a professional with training in conflict resolution and not someone who might be in a position of power over an individual seeking to lodge a complaint. Such a position is necessary, long overdue, and must, we maintain, be in place by the next annual meeting

We furthermore support the other suggestions of those people of color in the field who have already urged:

Programming from the SCS leadership, not only from the “interest groups,” that directly addresses the systemic racism of the field and our members.

Structural changes to programming at annual meetings:

The SCS has changed a great deal since the founding of WCC in 1972. The meeting program has been opened up in many ways, but not so much in terms of the racial diversity of presenters. We recommend that the SCS Programming Committee, in consultation with representatives of WCC, LCC, CSJ, and Mountaintop (should they wish to join), develop and implement a ‘best practices’ guide that will work against the structural and implicit racism in current programming procedures. Ideally, they would use this guide as they make program choices for 2020 SCS.

Structural changes to SCS governance: Open nominations for elected positions are a step, but clearly this move has not gone far enough; the leadership remains predominantly white and male. Other (also predominantly and historically white) organizations and societies have done better (e.g., Medieval Studies’ ICMS). We advise all current SCS leadership to do the research on their strategies and come up with better governance solutions that would work for SCS. The WCC has several volunteers ready to help in this effort.

The WCC is committed to making meaningful change, and its members are willing to work with the SCS to that end. We must do what can be done to act in accordance with what we say we believe. We quote here from the WCC statement of mission and values:

The Women’s Classical Caucus supports dialogue, collaboration and the free exchange of ideas among scholars from all parts of the world. For this reason, we condemn and reject discriminatory language, laws and actions directed against groups of people based on race, religion, national origin, sex, gender expression or identity, sexual orientation, age or disability. We welcome all as members of our organization and we stand in solidarity with our colleagues and students against the assault on the values we share, such as liberty, equity and justice, which has become increasingly acceptable since the most recent US election.

To our colleagues who have found themselves attacked for their scholarship and public outreach, who have received derogatory or discriminating remarks, hate speech, death or rape threats, or who have had their private information exposed because they exercised their freedom of speech in the practice of the profession, we offer our support and any assistance we can provide. We similarly offer our support and assistance to those students and colleagues who have been affected by the recent executive order restricting immigrants and refugees. The WCC unequivocally opposes these un-American and potentially unconstitutional measures and activities, and we stand ready to work together with those who seek to protest them.

Sincerely yours,

Nancy Sorkin Rabinowitz and Lisl Walsh, WCC co-chairs

Dear Professor Rabinowitz and Professor Walsh:

Thank you for the WCC letter of support and your concrete suggestions for addressing endemic problems in our profession, and indeed American society at large, which were so brutally exposed at the San Diego meeting. This response will be brief, since we should turn as soon as possible to work on the kind of changes we want and need. I thus address your points:

1) In earlier years the idea of an ombudsperson was broached, and since San Diego the Board of Directors has brought it up again. At least my own university has an ombuds, who has been quite useful. The appointment and announcing of an ombuds seems something that can be done fairly soon, certainly before the next Annual Meeting.

2) I work from iii to i here, since I personally am least clear on i.

iii. The last SCS election clearly revealed unhappiness with the way elections have been held. The BofD and the Nominating Committee have discussed the problems, but we have not yet looked to the strategies you suggest. I would also be pleased to work with the WCC volunteers: we need as much informed input as we can get.

ii: A discussion of Best Practices, too, seems feasible before the next round of submissions for presentations at the SCS, even though the time is fairly short. Again, the BofD and the Program Committee need to consult with those who want to see greater change.

i. For this I personally need some guidance. I am pretty sure that here the WCC means that I, as president, and all of us on the BofD, need ourselves to step up to address the problems, and not turn to Mountaintop, CODIP, or some other group to collect data and propose solutions. Is that true? You certainly mean more than suggesting implicit bias workshops and the like for us (despite the clear value of such workshops, as I know from experience). Furthermore, Helen has collected some suggestions and will be consulting with me about this.

Thank you also for appending to your letter the WCC statement of mission and values: it is stirring and inspirational. We have a lot to do, but it seems less insurmountable now that we have seen your WCC letter of support.

Yours,

Tolly Boatwright