What's Going On at PRX, Part III: The Employees

Plus: Ira Glass Tries to Help, Amanda McLoughlin Goes On the Record, and I'm Perplexed By a Tweet

So, what has gone on at PRX since August of 2020?

This is the final part in a three-part series on PRX; part one is here and part two is here. I recommend reading everything in order.

In part one, my reporting revealed that between August of 2020 and July of 2022, PRX lost half its workforce, and also that all white new hires still work at PRX, while 42% of BIPOC new hires have already left the organization.

In part two, my reporting revealed that, in the wake of Palace Shaw’s resignation letter, PRX mostly disregarded calls for immediate change from employees, creators on its Radiotopia podcast network, and its public patrons. Among other things, that installment also uncovered that PRX failed to disclose that it had a prior relationship with the law firm it hired to investigate Palace Shaw’s claims against the organization.

In our third and final installment, we’ll look at what happened inside PRX during this timeframe and assess why PRX has failed to right the ship.

During the course of this reporting, I’ve often wondered what PRX CEO Kerri Hoffman was thinking as everything unfolded during the late summer and early fall of 2020. Given the public and private pressure, did she ever consider that stepping down might be the right choice for PRX? Hoffman has repeatedly declined to speak with me, but in October of 2020, during a conversation with Multitude Productions CEO Amanda McLoughlin, she made her point-of-view on this clear. Here’s McLoughlin, on the record, recounting of how that call came to be, and what she made of it:

In October of 2020, PRX asked me to continue teaching classes as part of the curriculum for the PRX/Google Podcasts Creator Program. My class, which I'd taught three or four times at that point, focused on how to run your show as a successful business, how to do marketing, how to spend your budget, etc. It was going really well; the feedback from participants was always very positive.

But after reading Palace’s letter, I let the team know that I couldn’t participate in the next round until PRX adequately responded to Palace. Kerri’s public response was basically "this is disturbing and we’re listening to you,” so I told the team that I couldn’t move forward with the class.

Kerri emailed me almost immediately asking to talk, writing that "Social media or public postings don't capture the complexity of racial equity and organizational growth and change." I scheduled a call with her, which ended up being 45 minutes of her talking at me without interruption about how bad she feels, how hard this is for her, and how people need to learn and grow — all these platitudes that didn’t actually mean anything. She told me that it would be cowardly for her to step down as CEO, and that the brave thing would be to stay. I asked her point-blank, Kerri, do you honestly think that you are the right person to help PRX navigate its way out of this situation? And she just repeated that line about how she wouldn’t sit down because it would be braver to stay.

That was answer enough for me. I told her that until the people that PRX has harmed are satisfied with your response, I can no longer work with them. My participation in PRX programming would be an endorsement of PRX as an institution, and they have a long way to go until I would be comfortable making that endorsement. So I haven’t worked with them since. 

Though it appears that Hoffman never considered stepping down, according to sources, two other employees left the organization as a result of what happened during the summer of 2020. First, Palace Shaw’s direct manager was fired. This was the employee PRX had referred to as a “team leader” in an August Medium post:

we are working with the training department, with whom the former employee worked. Until this is completed, we have put the team leader on administrative leave.

It’s unclear when “administrative leave” turned into “never coming back,” but PRX’s decision to refrain from naming this person and acknowledging their wrong-doing added to staffers’ sense of hopelessness and frustration. “Listen, someone losing their job isn’t a good thing,” one source told me. “But I’m not sure that [the employee] was ever told why [they were] leaving.”

“To this day no one has acknowledged it — instead, it’s all by implication and hearsay,” said another. “Like most things at PRX, it’s been treated with a sense of secrecy and a sense from management that you shouldn’t ask questions about it.” (Shaw seemed to have predicted all of this ahead of time, writing in her resignation letter that “PRX…refuses to fully recognize and name its own toxic impact. Which means it cannot move forward….”)

Based on my reporting, it’s clear that letting this person go was the right thing to do, but it was handled in a way that emptied it of meaning and stripped away the possibility that leadership, the employees, or even the person who left could learn anything from it.

As I would prefer not to be sued — and because I don’t think it’s critical to the story — I’ve chosen not to reveal this person’s name, but suffice it to say that after taking a short break, they are back to work in the podcast industry.

In early October, another impending departure came to light: PRX’s Chief Content Officer John Barth announced he was planning to retire; his final day would be December 31st. This was notable because in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, Barth had been involved in a separate racial altercation, in which he had angrily dismissed questions from Black journalists at PRX’s The World regarding the lack of non-white editorial leadership in the newsroom. According to a tweet from @freepublicradio at time, after the interaction, Barth reported his behavior to Human Resources. (You can find an unverified partial transcript from the meeting from that same Twitter account here).

freepublicradio @freepublicradio

2/5 .@prx Chief Content Officer @JohnBarth raised his voice, wagged his finger, and repeatedly interrupted THREE staff members, women of color, who asked questions over the lack of non-white journalists in editorial decision making.

Interestingly, in interviews with former employees, their feelings about Barth’s departure were complex. While some felt relief that he was no longer at PRX, others, including Black former employees, felt that while Barth had “majorly fucked up,” he shouldn’t have been forced to leave. They suggested that Barth had been “scapegoated,” that he was the sacrifice necessary to keep Hoffman in her role as CEO. To be clear, I have no hard evidence to support these claims — again, please don’t sue me! — and both PRX and John Barth have declined to comment.

In the background of all this, leadership was busy orchestrating a series of meetings with DEI consultants. “They felt like diversity kumbayas,” one source recalled. “We were supposed to share grievances and explain our backgrounds but it basically felt like we were there to redeem or rehabilitate Kerri. It never felt like we were getting to the meat of why we were doing this in the first place, or how PRX itself was complicit in systemic racism. When [the conversation] got close to anything having to do with PRX specifically, they would just gloss over it.”

Employees may not have been the only ones who felt that elements were being glossed over. In an email sent to PRX leadership after a number of these sessions had taken place, one DEI consultant wrote (emphasis theirs), “To reiterate, I feel there needs to be a conversation about WHY PRX is undertaking this work & how that relates to your purpose. [I] can help facilitate that work…but it needs to be your WHY.”

In addition to meetings helmed by DEI professionals, multiple Black employees told me about a series of separate meetings in which they were paid a small sum to meet with Hoffman and the head of HR, a non-Black person of color. Participants told me that the reason for these meetings was never made clear. “We would discuss various Black topics, then Kerri would tell us how hard everything felt and would end up crying,” one person who attended the meetings told me.

Former staffers told me that at best these meetings were laughable, at worst, they were re-traumatizing. “It felt like we were just there to share our stories of Black hardship,” said one attendee. “It was very uncomfortable.”

According to sources, one positive thing did emerge from these gatherings: a palpable sense of unity among the participants. “We were there for each other,” one source recalled. “We would backchannel during the meeting, just like ‘this is so absurd, why are we here.’”

When I reached out to PRX to ask about these events, I received this statement:

[These] meetings were designed to discuss matters pertaining to the organization and to help inform organizational work. This process was a step in the work ahead and important in areas including creating organizational values, improving the onboarding process for staff, and the hiring process for the Senior Director, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, which began in December 2020. 

In late October, the law firm Prince Lobel released the results of its investigation into Palace Shaw’s claims. As I’ve shared before, in the “excerpt from the final summary” — to my knowledge, the only part of the report officially released to the public — the firm wrote that it “did not uncover any evidence of unlawful discrimination or harassment, or a violation of any PRX policy related to Ms. Shaw and her employment at PRX.” (You can find a full copy of this report here.)

“It felt like a no-fault divorce,” a former staffer recalled. “[The report] was just, ‘we've parted ways with an unnamed employee and Shaw has left.’ There was no indication that there would be a change in leadership or even a change in practices.”

Other former employees felt like the process had been biased from the start (looking back, perhaps this wasn’t an egregious stretch, given what we now know about PRX’s former relationship with the investigator). “It’s hard to prove that a system is racist,” one source pointed out. “And sometimes, based on the way questions were asked, it felt like the burden of proof was on the employees.”

This source went on to say that most, if not all of the employees who were questioned for the report had never been through a process like that before and couldn’t possibly know how their answers would be used. (I’m sure it didn’t help that, according to the report itself, the investigator “was unable to promise absolute confidentiality because of possible legal imperatives to report certain types of conduct.”)

Regardless, interviewees did share at least some number of candid stories, which appear in a section of the report titled “Complaints of Unconscious Bias, Structural Racism and Microaggressions.” Here’s an excerpt (emphasis mine):

…several of the Black women who were interviewed had stories of their own that they could relate to unconscious bias, structural racism or microaggression. One of the Black women said she wanted to take Palace’s email and say “me too”…she said she worked really hard on a project but was met with negative feedback from her manager. Later, when her hard work was seen, appreciated and “validated” by individuals from outside PRX, her manager suddenly “recognized” the value of her work. Other women complained of being criticized because of mistakes made by others or not being told when plans changed. Similar stories arose about employees being told to do one thing but getting chastised for not doing something else (gaslighted). Several of the women said that they felt undervalued at PRX and two said that they believed if they were not Black women, they would not have had to work so hard.

When I came across this passage, I was struck by the similarity between the line I bolded above and a line from the publicly distributed “excerpt from a final summary” (emphasis again mine):

The investigation uncovered signs of what can be described as unconscious bias and “microaggressions” that tended to make the work experience for some BIPOC employees difficult…

Notice the difference? In the version shared with the public, the words “structural racism” have been removed. It seems that someone — either from Prince Lobel or PRX — made the conscious choice to erase those words from PRX’s public record. And not to nitpick here, but why are there suddenly quotation marks around the word “microaggressions”?

Given PRX’s lack of transparency around everything the investigation, some employees were surprised when leadership invited them to join a DEI director “hiring committee” — a feeling that intensified when they received a call from Ira Glass offering to help. According to multiple sources, Glass told the employees that his organization had "taken DEI seriously” and now viewed everything “through a diversity lens.” (When reached, Glass declined to comment.)

After speaking with committee members, Glass put them in touch with two women of color on his team who had orchestrated the DEI process at This American Life. According to my reporting, a key recommendation made by Glass’s staff was that, in order to keep leadership accountable, the DEI director should report to the PRX board. Unfortunately, Hoffman chose to disregard this advice; PRX has confirmed that Senior Director of DEI, Byron Green, reports directly to Hoffman.

“When we heard that Byron would be reporting to Kerri, the writing was on the wall,” a former employee told me. “We had wanted to stay in the fight, but at that point it was obvious that even if [management] listened to us, they would still do things their way.”

Meanwhile, PRX publicly positioned the process as a success. In an April 14, 2021 Medium post titled “Rethinking Our Hiring Process for DEI,” the organization patted themselves on the back for piloting “a new hiring approach,” that included the involvement of “a hiring committee of ten volunteers to get more people involved from the start.”

The feedback I’ve received from employees regarding Dr. Green has been very positive. People have described him as “wonderful,” “fantastic,” and even “a balm for my soul.” But sources have also told me that Green is acutely aware that there are things he can and can’t change within PRX.

“He’s thrown in the towel on large-scale change,” said one source. “He knows that, by and large, there are obstacles to creating a safe space for people of color at PRX.”

Former employees also told me that despite Green’s efforts, the organization’s DEI programming has been silo’ed to specific groups within PRX. “There’s no super structure integrating it into PRX more deeply,” said one former staffer. “That work was basically handed off to Byron, but that’s not the work of one person; that’s the work of the whole organization. Instead it has felt piecemeal or just focused on one group within the organization.”

Certainly one of the most successful initiatives at PRX has been the completion of its compensation analysis. When I reached out for details, PRX sent me the following statement:

In fall 2021, PRX partnered with Clifton Larson Allen (CLA) to advise PRX on the development of a compensation philosophy for the organization. When PRX applied the current compensation philosophy to its existing staff, the organization determined the salaries of some employees should be changed in light of the new market data.

According to my reporting, the compensation analysis was complete by December of 2021, though PRX has not confirmed this date. As I’ve reported before, any employees who left the company prior to its completion did not receive backpay but of the employees who were on staff, some were found to be underpaid and received a limited amount of backpay. (PRX has not confirmed how far back this pay extended, but according to at least two sources, it had a cap.) PRX has also confirmed that the official starting salary for people in Palace Shaw’s previous role now ranges between $69,000 and $72,000 — a big jump up from Shaw’s 2020 salary of $48,000.

So there have been improvements, but why hasn’t PRX been able to right the ship?

First, I would argue that the results of the investigation gave leadership tacit permission to not fully engage with the work required to make DEI an integral part of PRX culture. To be clear, this is my opinion — not a fact — but from my reporting, as well as my personal experiences trying to engage with the company, it seems evident that management prefers to check boxes than do the work. (As one source said, “They have done just enough to check a box with their partners, and save face within the public media industry. Someone should teach a master class on how the hell they did that!”)

Second, my reporting showed that PRX opted out of virtually every opportunity to build connection with its employees. Instead of working to build a culture of camaraderie, trust, celebration, and inclusiveness, management repeatedly made decisions that allowed blame, secrecy, fear, and a culture of ‘leadership versus employees’ to thrive.

When I asked employees how PRX might change things, most of them said that without significant changes to leadership, things will remain the same. And after spending months speaking with people connected to the organization, I tend to agree. But I’d also like to point out that changing a system is hard, and often requires people with power to stand in support of it. I haven’t seen much of that support in my reporting of this story and I sincerely hope that changes.

With that, my “official” series on PRX comes to a close, but this is a story with many tendrils, and I’ll be keeping tabs on all of them. To that end, if you think I missed something, or have additional information you think I should know, please do reach out.

Finally, if you enjoyed this issue, please share it with a friend. That’s a great way to support my work right now.

That’s all for me this week!

See you next Thursday.

Skye

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this story included a tweet with a caption that read “PRX’s Training Team, as part of the Ready to Learn program, presented at the 2022 NETA Conference.” Based on that caption, I thought it was a picture of the PRX training team, but I was wrong. I’ve removed the tweet and regret including it in the original version of this newsletter!