A New Yorker staffer claims she was fired after speaking against racial bias and gender inequality in the workplace.
Erin Overbey tweeted on Monday, that she was put under a performance review that led to her being fired. In her 35-tweet thread, she writes that the review came after she sent an email raising concern about gender inequality. She claims that the New Yorker has no facts for the allegations against her. Overbey also accuses the editor-in-chief, David Remnick of adding errors in her articles.
The performance review blamed Overbey for self-plagiarism, disrespect, and factual inaccuracies. The archive editor mentioned about filing a grievance on the termination with the union of the paper. In her Twitter thread, she goes on to claim and reiterate that she has several pieces of evidence to back her claim against the paper. However, she suggests that The New Yorker is unable to contest any fact against their allegations.
Overbey discloses her efforts to speak against racial bias and gender inequality at her workplace from the previous year. She also claims that the paper never disputed her top-performing articles.
She wrote, “Whenever you raise concerns, criticisms, or alarms about one of the most powerful institutions in media, they will use every tool at their disposal to oppose you.”
A spokesperson for Conde Nast wrote that the paper “prides” itself on “highest journalistic standards”. They also went on to write that The New Yorker does not endorse “false allegations” against any colleague.
In another Twitter thread on September 14th last year, Overbey talked about racism at prestigious magazines. In that, she claimed that magazines like The New Yorker are not bothered to talk about racial bias because of their old-school mindset. She wrote that people avoid talking about these discourses because it makes them “uncomfortable”.
In both the threads, she blames Remnick for the lack of voice raised against gender inequality, racism, and her termination. For a journalist who has been accused of factual accuracies, she was sure to present evidence for her statements. She also relayed an incident where a male archive editor was being paid 20% more than her at a job he was not even qualified for. She had also applied for the same job and was more qualified than him. Her efforts of raising this concern were also in vain.
Despite the obvious bias, Overbey remains steadfast to defend herself.
