Harassment in the Superman office

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Note: While slightly edited, this was originally posted in the Superman thread, but Cipher made the quite reasonable note that this is something that has implications beyond just that line, so I'm posting it here too.

So this was released yesterday by Alex De Campi, explaining some things about her time at DC and why the main WW title isn't anything like the just-cancelled Sensation Comics in terms of characterization or critical acclaim. The whole thing is both appalling and worth reading, but there's some specific things worth noting in reference to the Superman line, that has larger implications for the company as a whole:

1. Wonder Woman as a title falls under the Superman editorial offices' purview (but hey, it's not as if DC's just playing her up as Superman's arm-candy, right?).

2. Allegedly, no women work directly in the Superman office at DC.

3. Not-so-allegedly given multiple witnesses to multiple incidents, this is one way or another because one of the senior Superman editors - consensus from those talking about this piece universally being Eddie Berganza - is a repeated sexual harasser, including grabbing a woman's breasts, and forcing a kiss on a woman whose boyfriend - an artist at DC - was in the bathroom, both of those incidents in public areas.

4. Part of the reason this continues despite fear on corporate's part of a lawsuit is that said harasser allegedly has some kind of blackmail material on his own boss.

5. She mentions "there are five known big-name, vindictive harassers in comics, and about three bad drunks. Two harassers are writers employed by DC; one is a DC editor; two are writers employed by Marvel." I'd assume that would be Brian Wood and Nathan Edmondson at Marvel from what I've heard.

Nick Hanover, co-founder of the site Loser City, has elaborated on Twitter (and as this isn't straight from the horses' mouth of someone who worked at DC, I guess this is to be taken with slightly more of a pinch of salt, though frankly I believe every word) that this is Berganza, that he's essentially been "quarantined" to the Superman books, and his position is safe because it's scumbags of various varieties all the way to the top of the ladder who don't want to rock the boat and make a scene, which is why harassment allegations rarely name names and is rarely even reported at all: there's little point to fighting back alone and a guarantee of blacklisting (de Campi brings up at the end of the article that yeah, this is pretty much inevitably going to result in her being blacklisted from the Big Two. So any arguments about her doing it for attention or prestige? Really think about that first) if you do because they are, for all intents and purposes, running the table. His own DC editorial source (this is to be taken with the biggest pinch of all given the degrees of separation, but again, I see no reason to doubt at this point) has stated that everything on Berganza is "true or worse".

So what's my reaction? I think I'm done with the Super-titles for the time being. I was hanging on by a thread as is with Truth, Pak's doing the best he can but has been on an uphill battle to tell the stories he wants to since day one (literally nothing he's done on Action hasn't one way or another been a tie-in), plus he's both at least passively party to this AND is working with Cho on the new Hulk book with all his crap lately (I doubt he's a bad guy, but at a certain point you're judged by the company you keep), and I sure as hell don't intend to support this. Between this, Omega Men and Batman '66 (along, of course, Sensation Comics), I think as things stand I'm in a place where I'm done with DC once Snyder's run on Batman and Seeley/King Grayson wrap up--hell, I might not even wait for the end with Batman, it's dumb fun but hardly must-have comics anymore.

[AlexanderLuthor]

Could be true, could not be true. We, of course, have no way of knowing. I guess it's news that a former DC employee has posted it, but really no way to know the motivations here. If the people named are truly harassers I hope they are fired and/or sued, but if not then this is character assassination of the worst kind. I assume if the harassment was as public and widespread as she makes it sound Di Campi will be filing a lawsuit and we can read all about it, but at this point this is pure heresy, especially the added conjecture

[Vinsanity]

I don't know if it is true or not. If true then hopefully some positive changes are made. If not then I don't know. Just have to see what happens.

[Cipher]

Twitter reactions seem to be backing it up. And really, there's no reason not to believe this, as it can come at great personal cost to the person who first points fingers in that direction.

Anyway, as I said on the Superman board, this puts me in a bad spot as far as continuing to buy those titles. I'd been liking where they were going, but this kind of culture, if this is anywhere close to true, is absolutely unacceptable, and particularly terrible for mainstream superhero comics, which already pigeonhole themselves unnecessarily and embarrassingly.

[Den]

Her comments

The reason, I’ve been told by several people who work or used to work at DC, is because one of the most senior editors is a sexual harasser with multiple incidents on his HR file. I don’t use “alleged” here because at least one incident (grabbing a woman’s breasts) happened publicly at a corporate social gathering with multiple witnesses. There was also something about sticking his tongue down an artist’s girlfriend’s throat when the artist was in the bathroom. Again, public gathering.

Sound damning indeed.

Innocent until proven guilty always, but it sounds like there maybe witnesses to the acts and an HR file for evidence should this go to court.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Could be true, could not be true. We, of course, have no way of knowing. I guess it's news that a former DC employee has posted it, but really no way to know the motivations here. If the people named are truly harassers I hope they are fired and/or sued, but if not then this is character assassination of the worst kind. I assume if the harassment was as public as she makes it sound Di Campi will be filing a lawsuit and we can read all about it, but at this point this is pure heresy, especially the added conjecture

No, there isn't going to be a lawsuit. She's an indy comic book writer, and he's got WB behind him. Maybe they'd be willing to settle out of court to avoid the bad publicity, but that's as much as could be hoped for. There have been plenty of incidents like this before and nothing's come of it legally, there's zero reason to expect this to be different.

And just to say this up front with all the inevitably incoming accusations of "character assassinations" and what not: why? That's not a rhetorical question. Every single time something like this comes up - and it has MANY times these past few years - the first question on the lips of at least half the people with anything to say is "what if she's making it up?". Why? What's the practical upshot here? She's a professional who's got enough clout to get a story published in a critically acclaimed Big Two title, what's the reasoning on her doing this? Of Tess Folwer a couple years ago when she told us all about Brian Wood, or Janelle Asselin when she had the sheer contempt for the industry and all we stand for to say "hey, that underage girl's boobs are creepily big and uncovered on this mainstream comic with the same name as a popular kid's TV show, it's kinda weird"? What's the endgame? Money, prestige, or my personal favorite part of the holy trinity, attention? How's that been working out for them, especially relative to the people they criticized? Why would these women theoretically expect this to work out well for them personally, and why do so many here think that's the most likely motivation for them? Why is a collective of crazy attention-seeking professional women in comics faking harassment allegations for results that don't seem to materialize more believable than that some guys in positions of power are being creeps? Why is it considered comparably believable at ALL?

[Lee Stone]

2015 definitely is an interesting year for DC.
And for all the wrong reasons.

As a former manager, myself, my opinion is that Warner Brothers needs to step in and make some changes.
If there is even a sliver of a truth to this, they have a right to protect their public image.
I would put a WB official or two in direct supervision over DC, in their offices, for a probationary period, at the very least.

[Cipher]

Re: Lawsuits: Agreed with Dispenser of Truth that it's not going to happen. What does need to happen is for this to be as public and decried among readers as possible. That's part of why I thought it so important it be posted on the DC board. The company doesn't have legal pressure to cave to, but it does have to try to avoid losing face.

And really, we should want this kind of environment gone for the quality of the genre anyway.

And just to say this up front with all the inevitably incoming accusations of "character assassinations" and what not: why? That's not a rhetorical question. Every single time something like this comes up - and it has MANY times these past few years - the first question on the lips of at least half the people with anything to say is "what if she's making it up?". Why? What's the practical upshot here? She's a professional who's got enough clout to get a story published in a critically acclaimed Big Two title, what's the reasoning on her doing this? Of Tess Folwer a couple years ago when she told us all about Brian Wood, or Janelle Asselin when she had the sheer contempt for the industry and all we stand for to say "hey, that underage girl's boobs are creepily big and uncovered on this mainstream comic with the same name as a popular kid's TV show, it's kinda weird"? What's the endgame? Money, prestige, or my personal favorite part of the holy trinity, attention? How's that been working out for them, especially relative to the people they criticized? Why would these women theoretically expect this to work out well for them personally, and why do so many here think that's the most likely motivation for the women involved? Why is a collective of crazy attention-seeking professional women in comics faking harassment allegations for results that don't seem to materialize more believable than that some guys in positions of power are being creeps? Why is it considered comparably believable at ALL?

Absolutely.

No one -- especially a writer who's just broken into such a tightly controlled field -- wants to pick that fight. The only reason to do it would be absolute moral conviction or concern for the genre.

The fact that other industry-connected sources and circumstantial evidence (Berganza being demoted a few years back) seem to corroborate it is just icing. That's a long way from being able to comfortably risk libel and career suicide by naming names, though, and if the harassers here are that well protected (to the point the higher-up culture is toxic enough to allow an editor to be "quarantined" as head of an office), that's why we haven't seen more yet.

As a former manager, myself, my opinion is that Warner Brothers needs to step in and make some changes.
If there is even a sliver of a truth to this, they have a right to protect their public image.
I would put a WB official or two in direct supervision over DC, in their offices, for a probationary period, at the very least.

This may be a solution worth reasonably hoping for, though I'm not sure WB putting their foot down that directly for something that closely tied to the (to them, financially negligible) actual comics side of things is all that likely.

The powers that be at WB only really need to care about the IPs. It's the powers that be at DC who need to care about readers, and need to hear backlash from them.

[blaster86]

Could be true, could not be true. We, of course, have no way of knowing. I guess it's news that a former DC employee has posted it, but really no way to know the motivations here. If the people named are truly harassers I hope they are fired and/or sued, but if not then this is character assassination of the worst kind. I assume if the harassment was as public and widespread as she makes it sound Di Campi will be filing a lawsuit and we can read all about it, but at this point this is pure heresy, especially the added conjecture

This-10chara

[FishyZombie]

This is disturbing news/rumor, even worse if dc's higher ups were aware of this intolerable behavior without stepping in.

[Sacred Knight]

One of those things worth keeping an eye on if it develops further, sadly for the wrong reasons.

[Lee Stone]

Re: Lawsuits: Agreed with Dispenser of Truth that it's not going to happen. What does need to happen is for this to be as public and decried among readers as possible. That's part of why I thought it so important it be posted on the DC board. The company doesn't have legal pressure to cave to, but it does have to try to avoid losing face.

And really, we should want this kind of environment gone for the quality of the genre anyway.


This may be a solution worth reasonably hoping for, though I'm not sure WB putting their foot down that directly for something that closely tied to the (to them, financially negligible) actual comics side of things is all that likely.

The powers that be at WB only really need to care about the IPs. It's the powers that be at DC who need to care about readers, and need to hear backlash from them.


Absolutely.

No one -- especially a writer who's just broken into such a tightly controlled field -- wants to pick that fight. The only reason to do it would be absolute moral conviction or concern for the genre.

The fact that other industry-connected sources and circumstantial evidence (Berganza being demoted a few years back) seem to corroborate it is just icing. That's a long way from being able to comfortably risk libel and career suicide by naming names, though, and if the harassers here are that well protected (to the point the higher-up culture is toxic enough to allow an editor to be "quarantined" as head of an office), that's why we haven't seen more yet.

Actually...
DC only pays lip-service to readers.
It's the retailers they care most about.

If the retailers were to say something, then they would listen.
They're DC's real customers.

If, say, all the retailers refused to buy the Superman books until a change was made... that would garner more attention.
And with Superman and Action not being best-sellers right now, the shops wouldn't really suffer. They could put that extra money on Batman and All New Marvel.

And as we've seen from DC's actions, regarding DCYou, it would only take three months for them to do something.

Of course, this is assuming that substantial proof was brought forth and DC/WB didn't handle it accordingly.

[db105]

The problem of harassment is a complex one, because it is true that victims of harassment are in a very difficult position, since it is not easy to prove and because they may fear that they will be regarded as potential troublemakers by the companies. On the other hand, reading this, all these allegedly, and consensus from those talking and the cofounder of I don't know what site says sounds like rumors instead of like minimally rigorous journalism. And this subject matter deserves rigor.

And just to say this up front with all the inevitably incoming accusations of "character assassinations" and what not: why? That's not a rhetorical question. Every single time something like this comes up - and it has MANY times these past few years - the first question on the lips of at least half the people with anything to say is "what if she's making it up?". Why? What's the practical upshot here?

How could I know? You do have a point, but people are very different and under the same circumstances different people act in very different ways. I work for a big company, and a few years ago the person who was then my boss left the company and as part of the termination settlement he sued the company for racial discrimination (he is half Chinese). The issue was settled in an out of court agreement. Having worked next to him, I am convinced that there was no racial discrimination, and that the accusation was part of a labor dispute. In this case the motivation is clear, since he probably profited from it through a better settlement, just because the company does not want any negative publicity, even if the accusation is unfounded. In De Campi's case, there doesn't seem to be an economic motivation as far as we know. Could it be because she is pissed off at the company and wants to throw shit at it? Most people wouldn't act like that, but some might. Certainly, it might also be true and she spoke up because it is the right thing to do.

By the way, reading all this, it does not sound as if she is saying she personally was the victim of harassment. She is saying that in the Superman office, where if I understand it correctly she has not worked, there is a senior editor who allegedly is a sexual harasser. Allegedly, that is the reason why, again allegedly (can't we even establish that simple fact?), no women work in that office.

I also do not like that she mixes quality of the comics with this issue, because they are really independent issues. You can be a great artist and a harasser, or a mediocre artist and not a harasser. Besides, if we talk about quality, in the main WW I have just finished reading a long run (Azzarello's) that in my opinion was very high quality.

[ilovelocust]

No, there isn't going to be a lawsuit. She's an indy comic book writer, and he's got WB behind him. Maybe they'd be willing to settle out of court to avoid the bad publicity, but that's as much as could be hoped for. There have been plenty of incidents like this before and nothing's come of it legally, there's zero reason to expect this to be different.

And just to say this up front with all the inevitably incoming accusations of "character assassinations" and what not: why? That's not a rhetorical question. Every single time something like this comes up - and it has MANY times these past few years - the first question on the lips of at least half the people with anything to say is "what if she's making it up?". Why? What's the practical upshot here? She's a professional who's got enough clout to get a story published in a critically acclaimed Big Two title, what's the reasoning on her doing this? Of Tess Folwer a couple years ago when she told us all about Brian Wood, or Janelle Asselin when she had the sheer contempt for the industry and all we stand for to say "hey, that underage girl's boobs are creepily big and uncovered on this mainstream comic with the same name as a popular kid's TV show, it's kinda weird"? What's the endgame? Money, prestige, or my personal favorite part of the holy trinity, attention? How's that been working out for them, especially relative to the people they criticized? Why would these women theoretically expect this to work out well for them personally, and why do so many here think that's the most likely motivation for them? Why is a collective of crazy attention-seeking professional women in comics faking harassment allegations for results that don't seem to materialize more believable than that some guys in positions of power are being creeps? Why is it considered comparably believable at ALL?

One of my little brother's friends was recently run out of a extracurricular gym/P.E. group. One of the new girls accused him of sexually harassing her in a Skype call that the group frequents. Claiming he did things like asking her to show her boobs and such. There wasn't really an upshot for her. She barely knew the kid, there were plenty of witnesses that now had a personal reason to dislike her going forwards, and she was the new person in gym/P.E. so rocking the boat wouldn't win her friends. Well turns out she lied. Unbeknownst to her all those skype calls were recorded because the guy running them is paranoid (properly it turns out).

Some people lie even when it would seem ridiculous for them to do so and like they should know they are going to get to caught. Just look at that lesbian waitress who claimed she got a hateful message scrawled on her receipt and no tip (bank statements showed that she had gotten a tip and that the message was written on a copy of the receipt by herself), or Jackie for a more modern example you'd think she'd realize that her story would fall apart and she'd become an outcast, or the girl that cut a B into her forehead and claimed Obama supporters did it, or if you want to go a little further back there is always the Duke Lacrosse case where the accused weren't even in the same state at the time, or we could go super recent and talk about the ex-reporter that shot the female reporter on live tv (he wasn't even lying, he just seriously believed that when people said that someone "should go out to the field" for a report they were talking about cotton fields). Like I said, some people lie or blatantly misinterpret reality when it makes no sense to do so for us average folks.

That's why it's best to always wait for physical evidence before taking a sensational story at its word. Even then it's a good to examine the evidence for obvious flaws: Jackie, lesbian waitress, and Obama girl all had stories that fell apart on examinations of evidence.

[Rakzo]

A few friends already told me about this and if true, is indeed a disgusting situation.

It's bad enough as it is, but another problem is that he is not exactly a great editor who actually justifies his place at DC so the only reason why all of this is tolerated is because of his time in the company and contacts.