My Original Letter to Hagit Limor:
January 20, 2011
Ms. Hagit Limor
President
Society of Professional Journalists
Dear Ms. Limor...
I have to admit, I am truly ashamed of myself... embarrassed by my own stupidity. It was so easy to find when I looked it up today.
You are a Sabra... a native-born Israeli. You danced in the streets of Tel Aviv after the Six-Day War. Your father is a Holocaust survivor.
Why did you not recuse yourself from voting on the Helen Thomas Award matter??? Why did you bring it before your executive committee and board of directors at all??? Why did you not simply admit, from the beginning, that you may have a conflict of interest??? You could have, at the very least, passed the issue along to the floor of the next SPJ national convention.
You did none of those things. And, apparently, you did a pretty good job of keeping your own, personal prejudices in the matter a great secret. (How many of your own board members just learned about your conflict today, as I did, from a posting on Facebook?)
Your board's horrific decision -- and now, your influence on that decision -- to retire the society's Lifetime Achievement Award was certainly an unexpected blow to me and, I believe, to a large majority of SPJ members. The dirt left on your hands by this latest "news" has rubbed-off on all of us... has made SPJ a national embarrassment. Only you -- very soon and very publicly -- can do something to ease our pain.
I can only blame myself for my not having done enough research on this matter before I took a stand. My stand has not changed, nor will it.
What you are going to do about this is far more important. I suggest that your resigning from the presidency of the Society of Professional Journalists would be a very good start. And, as a senior member of SPJ, I hereby ask for that resignation immedately.
LLOYD H WESTON
1-866-266-2002
Please see my Helen Thomas Letters at: http://thehelenthomasletters.blogspot.com/
These Two Emails Were Received A.M. Friday, January 21:
Mr. Weston,
If you have time next week, please call me. My number is below. I would like to share the process (and necessary timing) behind this incredibly difficult decision – one in which SPJ leaders were forced to weigh its own commitments to diversity and free speech. It concerns me that your trusted source for information is Facebook.
No matter how you slice it, this was a lose-lose proposition for the Society. Not one leader that was asked to make this decision wanted to do so. But, as elected leaders, it is their responsibility. To be thrown under the bus by the very people that elected them to make these decisions is incredibly disheartening.
Like I said, I want to make sure you have a full understanding of this situation, which dates back to June 2010. I’m not asking you to agree with the decision, but I am asking that you take the time to fully educate yourself about it. And I hope you can at least respect and understand that there were other considerations that had to be taken into account.
In direct response to your message below.
To personally attack Hagit’s integrity is beyond reproach. Furthermore, to insinuate that the rest of the board members didn’t know of Hagit’s background is an insult to their competency. Here’s how I summarized your letter: “the SPJ board is a bunch of comatose lemmings that were duped into supporting Hagit’s diabolical plan.” Frankly, every one of our board members should be offended by your insinuation – including those that support your position.
After all, her name is “Hagit.” Secondly, her parents joined us for the 2010 convention in Las Vegas – where they were introduced during her installation speech – in front of the entire crowd. If I recall, her father received a standing ovation. No doubt, this was one of the most proud moments in Hagit’s and her father’s lives. As it should have been. But given what has transpired over the past month, including personal attacks by you and countless others, I also have no doubt there are times that Hagit regrets her decision to carry the torch on behalf of this organization. And, given what has transpired over the past month, I’m not sure others will be willing to do so in the future. Who would ask for this kind of treatment in their volunteer work? Like you, they only want what’s best for SPJ.
Being a leader of SPJ comes with great responsibility. And sometimes those leaders are forced to make impossible decisions, knowing those sitting across from the table (and in our membership ranks) disagree. But, it’s the way it has to be. It’s how Democracy works. Everyone has a position, and everyone votes. Majority wins. In this case, 2/3 of those voted to retire the award. What’s great about SPJ is that there is a process for all members to be heard. If the membership wants to bring this up at convention through the delegate system, that is their right. And at no time has any board member discouraged that. If in the end, the board’s vote is overturned, then the membership has spoken and we all move on. All I ask is that you let the process play out, work with your fellow members if you like, but stop with the attacks on leadership – especially when you don’t have a full understanding or appreciation of the gut-wrenching decision these volunteers were forced to make.
I look forward to your call.
Joe
Joseph D. Skeel
Executive Director
Society of Professional Journalists
Sigma Delta Chi Foundation
3909 N. Meridian St.
Indianapolis, IN 46208
(317) 927-8000, ext. 216
fax: (317) 920-4789
=========================================================
Mr. Weston,
I have to question your motive for launching this personal and offensive attack on Hagit, whose dedication to SPJ and fairness in handling the painful Helen Thomas question cannot be questioned.
You accuse the board of simply following some nefarious plan concocted by Hagit because she’s Jewish and a native Israeli. You couldn’t be more wrong.
As SPJ Executive Director Joe Skeel indicated in his response, the executive committee first discussed the status of the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award last summer, right after Ms. Thomas’ public statements first stirred controversy. That discussion was spirited and diverse, but the committee ultimately took no action because of the circumstances in which Ms. Thomas’ remarks were made.
But after Ms. Thomas’ speech and further broadcast comments in December, SPJ board members felt some action was necessary. Some supported condemning Ms. Thomas’ statements but retaining the award in her honor. Others felt she had crossed a bridge too far and that her name should be removed from the award.
Again, to imply that SPJ board members did not engage in strong and at times painful debate on this issue or that Hagit exercised some undue influence on the ultimate vote is insulting to all of us, no matter our position on the motion that the majority supported.
I ask that you immediately rescind your call for Hagit’s resignation to show that you at least respect the process by which decisions are made within SPJ, if not the people who make them.
As Joe noted, SPJ provides a way for the membership to express its will — through their elected representatives on the board and ultimately through their delegates to the national convention.
I suggest you work within that system instead of launching uninformed and offensive attacks on the organization’s volunteer leaders.
Sonny Albarado
Region 12 Director
Society of Professional Journalists
121 E. Capitol Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-244-4321 (work)
501-551-8811 (cell)
On Twitter: @salbarado
SPJ blog: http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/
I have to question your motive for launching this personal and offensive attack on Hagit, whose dedication to SPJ and fairness in handling the painful Helen Thomas question cannot be questioned.
You accuse the board of simply following some nefarious plan concocted by Hagit because she’s Jewish and a native Israeli. You couldn’t be more wrong.
As SPJ Executive Director Joe Skeel indicated in his response, the executive committee first discussed the status of the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award last summer, right after Ms. Thomas’ public statements first stirred controversy. That discussion was spirited and diverse, but the committee ultimately took no action because of the circumstances in which Ms. Thomas’ remarks were made.
But after Ms. Thomas’ speech and further broadcast comments in December, SPJ board members felt some action was necessary. Some supported condemning Ms. Thomas’ statements but retaining the award in her honor. Others felt she had crossed a bridge too far and that her name should be removed from the award.
Again, to imply that SPJ board members did not engage in strong and at times painful debate on this issue or that Hagit exercised some undue influence on the ultimate vote is insulting to all of us, no matter our position on the motion that the majority supported.
I ask that you immediately rescind your call for Hagit’s resignation to show that you at least respect the process by which decisions are made within SPJ, if not the people who make them.
As Joe noted, SPJ provides a way for the membership to express its will — through their elected representatives on the board and ultimately through their delegates to the national convention.
I suggest you work within that system instead of launching uninformed and offensive attacks on the organization’s volunteer leaders.
Sonny Albarado
Region 12 Director
Society of Professional Journalists
121 E. Capitol Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-244-4321 (work)
501-551-8811 (cell)
On Twitter: @salbarado
SPJ blog: http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/
===================
My E-Mailed Rely to the Above:
TO: Joseph D. Skeel, Sonny Albarado
RE: In response to your e-mails of this date (below)
DA: January 21, 2011
Gentlemen:
First of all, Mr. Skeel, I will be delighted to call you next week. In fact, if you like, I will be happy to drive to Indianapolis for a day and buy you lunch. You pick the day.
Next, please let me sincerely thank you both for taking the time to write to me today. I know that you both must be busier than I am in your daily lives, and despite what you apparently think, I know I can only imagine the time, effort, sweat, strain and stress this whole Helen Thomas Affair has cost you, your families and your co-workers.
For all that – and for all the time and energy the board and officers of SPJ have put into this – I hold you all in the highest regard. Indeed, I have expressed my respect and admiration to each board member that has called or written to me on the subject in the last few weeks – no matter which side of the issue they were on.
You may be surprised to know that there is really precious little I find in either of your letters that I completely disagree with. In some cases our differences are only matters of degree, in others, however, our differences are matters of perception… meaning we are looking at the same problem, but see it very differently.
Yes, Mr. Skeel, this has been a no-win situation for SPJ. Yet, as far as I know, no one held a gun to the head of any of our leaders and forced the Board of Directors to take on the debate. The world would not have stopped spinning on its axis had SPJ simply let Wayne State University do what it did and quietly allow our own Helen Thomas Award to remain status quo.
Despite what you say about “(the board’s) responsibility” I cannot seen anything wrong with them officially electing to put the matter off to the 2011 national convention. Nobody threw any SPJ officers “under the bus.” Rather, they all voluntarily lay down in the middle of the street and begged the bus to roll over them.
If you have read my earlier letters, you know that I am a Jew. I belong to a synagogue, support Jewish organizations, have written for a number of Jewish newspapers, my mother is a volunteer docent at a holocaust museum, and I sent all of my children to Jewish parochial elementary school. I have two nieces who are Sabras and my eldest daughter is married to a Sabra.
I have made my own prejudices in the matter clear from the very first page of the very first letter I wrote to Wayne State about the Helen Thomas Award. I deeply regret that Hagit Limor did not do the same.
Personally, I could not be more proud that a Jewish woman, a Sabra, is president of the SPJ. But I cannot be more ashamed of how Ms. Limor has conducted herself in the Helen Thomas matter.
Mr. Albarado, you accuse me of launching a personal attack on Hagit… because of some nefarious Jewish plot she has concocted. I have no idea on what you base that accusation. Believe it or not, I am very much aware of the discussions about Helen Thomas last summer… and I really do know how much painful debate went on in December and into January. And, although I don’t agree with them, I fully understand those who feel that Helen “crossed a bridge too far.” I believe in the “majority rule” and it certainly is not my intention to insult anyone.
But I am afraid you both have really missed my point!
From my perspective… on the one hand, I see Helen Thomas – a woman of Arab descent being accused of having made malicious, if not vicious, remarks about the Israeli Occupation of Gaza and the West Bank (a/k/a Palestine). On the other, I see Hagit Limor, a native born Israeli (and child of a Holocaust survivor), whose fondest childhood memory is victory dancing in the streets of her home town in Israel to mark the end of the Six-Day War and the beginning of that very Occupation.
Ms. Limor’s role is that of Foreman of the Jury. Among the pieces of evidence she hears against Helen Thomas comes from a group called The American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants.
Now, if you can honestly tell me that you don’t see even the slightest perception of a conflict of interest for Hagit Limor in this scenario… well, you may as well stop reading right here… cancel the lunch. We can stop wasting each other’s time!
Any judge I know, would replace the jury foreman, if not call a mistrial, or surely the ruling – whatever it may be – would be overturned on appeal.
No matter how good and fair a person Hagit may be, that's how the general public is going to look at this... and that's going to make us look bad. Twice the malice in that it could have been avoided.
I am not sure how old you are, Mr. Skeel, but I am betting that I had more than a few years of experience as a newspaper reporter before you were even born. Give me a little credit, please. I would never use Facebook as a “trusted source.” I only yesterday saw reference to Ms. Limor’s heritage in a (shall we say) unflattering Facebook posting. I looked it up. I found it at http://workingpress.
-- The Working Press site for the 2010 SPJ national convention.
-- The Working Press site for the 2010 SPJ national convention.
I felt ashamed at my stupidity. How did I miss that? Why did I not know this before? Had I been paying more attention, and, two months ago, had I known what I know now, I would have been pleading with the SPJ board to put this off to the next national convention (which I still intend to do). Failing at that, I would have insisted that the board ask Ms. Limor to excuse herself from the proceedings and recuse herself from a vote.
If, as you say, you and the entire board did, in fact, know all this two months ago… I am truly puzzled that not even one of you motioned to do any of these things.
I would never use the phrase “a bunch of comatose lemmings” (those are your words, Mr. Skeel), but if this is really what happened (or, rather, didn’t happen) than I do believe the entire board must share the shame.
It is bad enough that the decision on the SPJ Helen Thomas Award imposed a self-inflicted wound (no more Lifetime Achievement honors) upon the organization… bad enough that the next SPJ national convention may overturn your ruling… but nothing is worse than the public perception that the “fix was in” against Helen Thomas.
Hagit Limor is street smart, erudite and a good journalist. I am even willing to concede that throughout this entire debate she did not give even one little thought to that street dancing after the Six-Day War… BUT, she had to see this coming. She decided to stick it out and take a gamble. (And the board let her.) In so doing, I believe she showed a lack of the professional integrity required of an officer of SPJ, and she violated our own Code of Ethics: to “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and to “Disclose unavoidable conflicts.”
In the end, she endangered SPJ’s standing in the professional community and may have made SPJ look ignorant and foolish to the general public. She must face the consequences. She must quit the presidency.
Enjoy your weekend.
LLOYD H WESTON
**********Hagit Limor's Resonse to My E-mail of 01/20,
Followed by my Response to her:
(Received / Responded PM 01/21/2011
Dear Mr. Weston,
It is with great sadness I must respond to your attack, as I have stayed silent through the majority of this controversy. That is key in my response to the misinformation you’ve shared with so many.
Yes, you truly should be ashamed of yourself. I have never hidden my identity or my ethnicity. I would hope everyone in this democracy stands proud of whence they come. Everyone within SPJ who follows Society business knows what you came to discover so late in the game about my “all-American-girl-next-door” sounding name, Hagit Limor.
They also know another ultimate truth. As president, I have acted only for what I believe to be in the best interest of the Society. As journalists set aside their opinions while approaching a story so have I set aside my personal views on this topic for the good of our organization.
Opposite to what you insinuate, I did not bring this to the executive committee or to the full board, nor did I ask anyone to do so. Other members did so on their own. I did not place it on the agenda. Other members did. I did not ask anyone to place it on the agenda. I did not lobby, send emails or in any way try to influence the original proposal – by others in December – to maintain the Lifetime Achievement award but remove Helen Thomas’ name. I did not vote on that issue at the executive board. While others pontificated at length for the six weeks before the executive board met, I stayed silent on the issue. I avoided the conflict of interest to which you refer by taking myself out of this conversation completely. My only public response to media questions about the controversy served to fully support the only Society decision to that point, the one made in July which maintained Ms. Thomas’ name on the award after her initial remarks on the White House lawn.
What I supported here was a compromise measure brought forth by someone who originally wanted to keep the award in Thomas’ name but realized that the board and the Society were deeply split, would never agree, and were spending all our time on this issue rather than the Society business we were elected to pursue. This was not a victory for either side. Those who felt a desire to keep the award without Ms. Thomas name feel they lost just as much as those who wanted to keep it as is. This proposal presented a middle ground that would allow the Society to move forward to the rest of the goals on our agenda. That is what I supported. And it came from someone on your side of the issue, Mr. Weston, not from the side you feel “won”, and not from me.
Yes, I kept my own “personal prejudices” to myself, not to the public, despite the slings and arrows, the ugly voice mails to my personal lines, and the emails that assailed me, my religion and my ethnicity personally in language I don’t care to repeat. I kept them to myself because I wanted to bend over backwards to avoid the very perception you now distribute as fact.
What you insinuate in your email is offensive not only to me but to many Americans. Given your logic, no one should be allowed to comment on anything that speaks to their heritage because it’s instantly suspect. So no African-American should ever be trusted to speak honestly about racism. This country and our Society as its reflection stand for our multiplicity of voices. I have a right to express my opinion. But I didn’t use that right so you wouldn’t have ammunition to suspect the two-thirds vote of the general board. Yet, you went there anyway.
I’ve seen many of those Facebook postings, alleging we didn’t allow discussion when I went to every person on the board for comment, and after I brought in constituencies no other president has sought, seeking more voices to contribute before the vote took place, many of those voices urging the opposite of what you presume me to have wanted as an outcome.
Yes, you should be ashamed. You state fiction as fact regarding how this came before the Society and then you presume to know my stance on this topic simply because of who I was born.
So let me state, once and for all, my position: This has never been a violation of Helen Thomas’ first amendment rights. The Society of Professional Journalists in no way denied Helen Thomas' right to free expression. In fact we defend it. We affirm her right to speak her mind. We also have affirmed her award not only for herself but for the nine recipients who followed her.
What we did, defends our organization's proprietary right to award future recipients. Just like Helen Thomas, they too have a right to their opinions, which may diverge from hers. This award had become more about Ms. Thomas and her views than about the actual award winners and their lifetime of achievement. It no longer represented the Society's original intent.
In my best world, Ms. Thomas and I would be standing together to affirm all of our rights to speak our opinions. That’s what the Society of Professional Journalists’ mission should be and that’s what I promise to spend the rest of my presidency fighting to maintain.
Best Regards,
Hagit Limor
President, Society of Professional Journalists
+++++++++++
Dear Ms. Limor...
Thank you for your note. It's good to hear from you. It may have been more productive had we talked earlier in this debate, but, better late than never.
Earlier today I received emails from Joe Skeel and Sonny Albarado. My reply to them has been copied to you and to everyone on your copy list. For the most part, I think my e-mail to them has covered most of the cogent points of your tantrum.
I don't know what I have said or done to you that makes you think I am a racist. The fact that your “'all-American-girl-next-door' sounding name" meant nothing to me at first glance, should at least give you some sense that I don't think that way.
How you managed to drag this into a discussion of African-Americans speaking about racism and the multiplicity of whatever, is beyond me. Of course, you have your right to your opinion. I don't know how you voted on the matter of the Helen Thomas Award... I don't care.... really. That is not and has never been my point.
You speak repeatedly about my "insinuations" and "accusations."
In my defense, let me say that in every letter I have written in this matter I have tried very hard NOT to insinuate anything, but rather to be clear and forthright in my every word. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only thing I have ever ACCUSED you of is doing "a pretty good job of keeping your own, personal prejudices... a great secret." Which in your letter to me you freely admit doing.
You should not have done that!!! When the Helen Thomas matter was brought to you, you clearly should have said something like... "Hey, guys. Listen. I am a Sabra. I remember celebrating the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War... this is what brought on the Occupation that has put Helen's panties in a bunch. No matter how it turns out, people are going to look at this that way... like her against me. I agree this is something the board ought to talk about, but I'm out of the picture."
You then should have asked your vice-president to temporarily take over --- on this issue alone... and you may never have heard from me even once!
That said... I have no intention of perpetuating this food fight.
Clearly, in my opinion, you have a personal conflict of interest with Helen Thomas. While you made no attempt to hide it, you admittedly made no effort to make it public. Whether you voted for or against the award is not material. By not recusing yourself from this matter, I believe, you violated the Code of Ethics of SPJ... not to mention the code of plain common sense.
Calling me a racist is not going to improve your public image or that of the society. The only honorable thing for you to do is resign.
LLOYD H WESTON
Thank you for your note. It's good to hear from you. It may have been more productive had we talked earlier in this debate, but, better late than never.
Earlier today I received emails from Joe Skeel and Sonny Albarado. My reply to them has been copied to you and to everyone on your copy list. For the most part, I think my e-mail to them has covered most of the cogent points of your tantrum.
I don't know what I have said or done to you that makes you think I am a racist. The fact that your “'all-American-girl-next-door' sounding name" meant nothing to me at first glance, should at least give you some sense that I don't think that way.
How you managed to drag this into a discussion of African-Americans speaking about racism and the multiplicity of whatever, is beyond me. Of course, you have your right to your opinion. I don't know how you voted on the matter of the Helen Thomas Award... I don't care.... really. That is not and has never been my point.
You speak repeatedly about my "insinuations" and "accusations."
In my defense, let me say that in every letter I have written in this matter I have tried very hard NOT to insinuate anything, but rather to be clear and forthright in my every word. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only thing I have ever ACCUSED you of is doing "a pretty good job of keeping your own, personal prejudices... a great secret." Which in your letter to me you freely admit doing.
You should not have done that!!! When the Helen Thomas matter was brought to you, you clearly should have said something like... "Hey, guys. Listen. I am a Sabra. I remember celebrating the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War... this is what brought on the Occupation that has put Helen's panties in a bunch. No matter how it turns out, people are going to look at this that way... like her against me. I agree this is something the board ought to talk about, but I'm out of the picture."
You then should have asked your vice-president to temporarily take over --- on this issue alone... and you may never have heard from me even once!
That said... I have no intention of perpetuating this food fight.
Clearly, in my opinion, you have a personal conflict of interest with Helen Thomas. While you made no attempt to hide it, you admittedly made no effort to make it public. Whether you voted for or against the award is not material. By not recusing yourself from this matter, I believe, you violated the Code of Ethics of SPJ... not to mention the code of plain common sense.
Calling me a racist is not going to improve your public image or that of the society. The only honorable thing for you to do is resign.
LLOYD H WESTON
