Uh-Oh. I've Gone Full Howard Beale.
I thought I was done with Kidneygate. More than a week later, though, after even more damning facts have come to light, I find myself going full Howard Beale.
For me it's not about "taking sides," it's about a full-on miscarriage of justice toward one party. I now believe Robert Kolker allowed himself to be swayed and blinded by the popular cool kids, a weakness I suspect we all suffer from (I'm not immune)—that our field, and our entire culture suffer from—and which led to a lot of misreporting through a combination of omission and inaccurate framing. I think he and the New York Times owe Dawn Dorland not just an apology and a series of retractions; I think they should publicly retract the entire story, and set the record straight. Anyone who read only the original story and not all of the follow-up, mostly on Twitter, is left with very wrong impressions, and that cannot stand.
Grub Street and the Chunky Monkeys owe Dorland a lot, too. Grub Street announced last week that it's launching an independent investigation. And Becky Tuch, one of the Chunky Monkeys who also teaches at Grub Street, took her compatriots to task, suggesting they get to work dispelling the misinformation that's been spread about Dorland throughout this.
***
As this story has unfolded, it's made me feel progressively more triggered and upset. I hate what happened, and I also hate how some people have belittled those, like me, who are stuck on this, as if it's trivial, just an ugly cat fight between two women. It's not, not at all. Someone's career and public image have been unfairly tanked by the paper of record. I don't take this lightly.
Also, I speak as someone who has been maligned in similar although much less extreme ways more than once in my life and career—painted in a misleading light by popular cool kids motivated by an agenda, or pettiness, or competitiveness, or feeling threatened by my front-and-center vulnerability and eagerness to be accepted, rendering them uncomfortable with their own. (I mean, that's what bullying often boils down to, doesn't it?)
Or maybe it's my saying out loud uncomfortable truths that most people keep to themselves. Or my scrappy refusal to be dismissed and give up in this field despite not being one of the popular cool kids, or one of the rich, well-connected kids, or an "it" kid. Don't get me wrong, over the years I've been blessed with many colleagues who've become true, mutually supportive friends, and I am grateful for them all. Still, popular back-biters abound. Even when not being mean on the surface, some popular cool kid-colleagues have still operated against me covertly—acted like my friends to my face, but talked shit behind my back to others, just as Larson did to Dorland, distorting my image to justify their beef with me, whatever it might be. Even when the dirt doesn't come back to you explicitly (which, surprise! it sometimes does!) you can tell a "friend" like that is doing you dirty when mutual acquaintances start treating you like a social pariah, unprompted.
There's not much you can do to counteract the effects of a smear campaign like that, lodged by a popular person. Not without committing social suicide. If you're shrewd, you just turn the other cheek, and wait for it to blow over.
Dorland wasn't willing to do that, though, and I don't blame her.
***
Popularity is incredibly seductive. It's magnetic, viral, infectious. Consciously, or unconsciously, we're all drawn to it, and envy it. Like wealth and every other form of power, it naturally, unfairly, disproportionately begets more and more of itself. The innate (or in many cases over-compensating) confidence maintained and projected by popular cool kids irrationally overrides others' logic, leading them to favor the already popular over anyone with similar qualities or talents—or legitimate complaints, which Dorland unfortunately had in spades.
I've heard it argued that Dorland was a litigious type, that in the past, she'd launched at least one allegedly frivolous lawsuit. But in this instance she was not the one to initiate the first legal case. Nor was she the first one to try and copyright the story in question; in the article, Kolker belittles Dorland's fear that Larson would try to copyright it first. But it turns out she was right to! Ultimately, it's what happened. Even though Dorland had told Larson she planned to write about her kidney donation. Because Dorland had told Larson she planned to write about her kidney donation.
Dorland was more than justified in fighting for her story and her image. Sadly, doing so only made those maligning her dig their heels in deeper and spin more bullshit about her, justifying it with her supposed "extra"-ness, and "neediness." Which Kolker totally bought. And which a lot of his readers bought, and then refused to let go of, no matter how much evidence to the contrary emerged.
***
This is all so upsetting to me. There's so much injustice here that's sadly relatable, and not easily rectified. I don't have the time to run down all the inaccuracies and misconceptions put forth by the article, and some subsequent articles that perpetuate them—and I can't do so without making myself sick. I'll refer you instead to a helpful reddit thread, and a dedicated Twitter account.
I realize that saying all of this out loud is a social risk unto itself. But I don't give a shit. Anyone who would hold it against me isn't a true friend. This shit is keeping me up at night, so I had to come here to say this, to add what is hopefully my final coda to this complete and utter travesty, so I can finally let it go and get on with my life.