I'm pretty sure that breaking client confidentiality would get me suspended if not disbarred.

And likewise, I could lose my license…at the very least, face suspension which means losing my job. Furthermore, future jobs are allowed to ask if I’ve faced disciplinary measures. A person answers yes, they can be shown the door without so much as a how do you do.

The relevant point of all of this… certain professions are held to higher standards, like the legal or medical fields. We spend hours and hours learning the in and outs of ethics, we’can’t practice without a license and we understand that violating those ethics, if they don’t land us in jail, can certainly cost us jobs. That’s a huge deterrent. We have boards that monitor ethical behavior, the financial clout behind those boards to enforce disciplinary action.

More, our professions require licensure.

That’s not something you see in organization like RWA. The only thing required for joining is paying the fee.

This doesn’t mean I don’t think there shouldn’t be ethical standards. I do. I think ethical behavior is simply a basic part of being a decent person. Ethics are what separate the decent from the not so decent.

But they have to be enforced. RWA, a voluntary organization, only has so much they can to enforce anything. Somebody lets their membership lapse, it won’t cost them a contract. By if I didn’t pay my dues to the board every two years, my nursing license would lapse and if I ever had to go back to work, I’d have to do the necessary steps, pay the fees, and probably take extra classes just to get relicensed…and therefore get a job.

I have to admit I am totally confused on the purpose of the RWA. Is it just advocacy? Is it for networking resource? Is it support?

Is it about educating the public about romance and advancing the idea of respectability of romance within the general public?

I’m probably not the best person to ask. I joined after I was published because I was told it wasn’t a bad idea. I stay a member because I adore my local chapter. But I don’t pay as much attention to some of the other resources.

But networking, support, advocacy, craft… these are things that I know RWA can offer. Beyond that… eh, we’d need to ask somebody that’s not such a lazy member.

The use of “Bitch” by Sarah and Candy is an intentional one to reclaim the meaning of a word. It’s like they are thumbing their noses at a patriarchal system that has attached negative meanings to female elements of society. It’s deliciously subversive.

Is it about educating the public about romance and advancing the idea of respectability of romance within the general public? If it has any intent to do the latter (which seems to coincide with some of the other things that RWA makes available on the internet), then I think it has to do something about the Edwards matter if only just to investigate it. (and by RWA, I understand that it is the decision of the board, not the staff).

I think the RWA, as an organization, stands as somewhat the face of romance at times, particularly within the genre and in this increasingly connected world much like Nora Roberts is the face of the genre.

Further, I think RWA should be proactive and start doing pieces on plagiarism and intellectual honesty so authors don't have to be fearful of possible “accidental plagiarism” i.e., defining what the ethical boundaries are for authors.

Jane, I agree with you on this~it’s actually something I’ve emailed RWA about since this whole mess started.

it seems to me that it should do an investigation to see if Edwards should still be on the Honor Roll. Otherwise, doesn't that diminish the Honor Roll meaning?

I don’t disagree here.

What I was getting at is that I was getting the impression that some people seem to think it’s RWA’s responsibility to dole out punishment here. IMO, that isn’t what RWA is there for. By all means, members found guilty of violating ethical guidelines should be removed from the membership roster. If they are on the Honor Roll, by all means, remove them.

In the long run, though, how much of a deterrent is that?

RWA isn’t like the medical board or, I’d imagine, the ethics committee that lawyers have.

I certainly hope RWA does decide to become more proactive. I’ll admit, some of the terminology of fair use/copyright/plagiarism, the lines are very blurred and more education would benefit a lot of writers.

You and I are both in fields where we are required to have specialized training, continuing education and to abide by a certain standard of ethics.

As a nurse, if I saw somebody I knew from high school coming into a clinic where I worked…but he wasn’t MY patient, and then I go digging around in his medical information, (FYI big no no) I could face losing my license. If I talked about this guy to my neighbor, I could face losing my license. These are serious consequences. Likewise, I’d imagine if you broke client confidentiality, you could also have to answer to somebody, something that can put your license…and therefore your livelihood at risk.

RWA has nothing like that. There is a code of conduct, but too often, these are used more as guidelines. They might get you thrown out of the club, but you don’t really need that club for whatever your chosen profession is. Not being a member of RWA won’t keep anybody from getting published.

You don’t need to published to join. You don’t even need to be a writer to join. It’s a voice, it’s a networking resource, it’s support. But it wasn’t set up to govern the writing community…and as such, there’s only so much they can do, only so much they have the resources for.

Further, I think RWA should be proactive and start doing pieces on plagiarism and intellectual honesty so authors don’t have to be fearful of possible “accidental plagiarism” i.e., defining what the ethical boundaries are for authors.

It’s obviously not using ideas or themes or plots. But it is (or should be) word for word copying without attribution.

I think a defined guide would be useful for the membership so that authors can talk about this without fear and by fear I mean worry or concern or angst that what they are doing might be considered by plagiarism for some.

Guidelines aren’t developed to help condemn people or lead them astray but rather to provide safe harbors, proscribe boundaries.

Shiloh- I don't think RWA should do anything at this point. They aren't a governing body and CE isn't even a member. Now, if CE is censured by her publisher, RWA should possibly look into removing her from their Honor list but that would be it.

Yeah, that’s pretty much my take on it, JC. There’s a difference between being a governing body and an advocate.

You'll notice they haven't said a word about what the mighty RWA are going to DO about this whole debacle.

KZ, I’m wondering what you think RWA should do. Writers don’t have an ethics committee like the legal profession, a medical review board like the medical field, an internal affairs bureau like like enforcement.

RWA does represent and advocate the romance community, but there’s no secret handshake, no license, or no badge they can take away from those deemed to have acted unethically. Somebody mentioned taking authors who have plagiarized off the ‘Hall of Fame’ but does that add up to much? She’s no longer a member so revoking the membership isn’t an option… and even if it was, that’s little deterrent.

So where else is there to go? Issue a statement they have indeed found somebody guilty of plagiarism, I guess, but beyond that?

RWA takes all accusations of plagiarism very seriously. RWA also stands behind the idea that guilt or innocence should be determined after a thorough review of all documents and sources, not based on discussions or articles found on the internet or in other news media.

Yeah, but then what? RWA always goes on (and on and on, ad nauseam) about how it’s an advocate for the romance writing profession, then it says, “we stand behind the idea…”. AND????? What are they going to DO about it? You’ll notice they haven’t said a word about what the mighty RWA are going to DO about this whole debacle.

Surely a much better statement from a so-called professional organisation would have been to say, “Blah blah as above. We have contacted the originating source for this allegation and have requested that they forward all materials to the RWA for immediate review. We will convene an emergency committee to review the forwarded material and will issue a statement to the general membership in x days.”

That is, if they think of themselves as professionals…

So…this is how it works. We have a possible case of an author liberating the work of another author, and the main complaint is the use of ‘bitch'? Many of them have said how this website has given romance yet another black eye…yet they ignore possible fraud – you tell me what's worse.

This is what I was muttering about yesterday. I’m with you, J.C. It’s stunning.

I just don’t get people sometimes. They pretty much had the attitude of because it is “non-fiction” it should be okay. Say what?

So…this is how it works. We have a possible case of an author liberating the work of another author, and the main complaint is the use of ‘bitch’? Many of them have said how this website has given romance yet another black eye…yet they ignore possible fraud – you tell me what’s worse.

Unbelievable!

Shiloh, for posting pretty much what I was going to re RWA's stand and process, thereby saving me the time and trouble, you're now my KY BFF.

*G* And just think… I was told so many times growing up that being mouthy and opinionated might not get me anything.

Does any other genre have an oversight like RWA?

Yes. I don’t know if you’d call it ‘policing’ but there are groups like Novelists, Inc and SFWA~Science Fiction Writers of America.

What I started wondering about was: Does any other genre have an oversight like RWA? Who fights/discusses as an organization when literary fiction or mystery or speculative fiction goes copy crazy? Why is this really RWA’s problem? I think they can make a stand, but in terms of policing members–it’s all a little unclear.

To me, this boils down to an author/editor/publisher issue, and the place it needs to be dealt with is there.

I didn’t think RWA told their members to hush that’s why I asked, since this author made it seem that RWA had indicated that nobody should discuss this until the courts had spoken.

Apart from that, I am a bit concerned by the part of the RWA statement that read ‘that guilt or innocence should be determined after a thorough review of all documents and sources, not based on discussions or articles found on the internet or in other news media’.

I would have been fine if they had stopped after ‘… and sources’.

The rest of that sentence seems to indicate that because a piece of information (and in particular this piece) was found on the internet or in the news media it must be suspect and cannot be considered a ‘thorough review’ or evidence.

I am really starting to think we are own worst enemy, sigh!

Growy

And I have serious doubts that RWA would suggest that the members be quiet. But even if they did, no one has to listen except the board of directors.