Former Employee Reveals Corruption in IRC Salt Lake City Office

(IRC Staff Experience)

Dear GARD Members,

The following is an account of racial discrimination and workplace retaliation that I experienced as a person of color at a US RAI field office in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The purpose of this letter is to highlight corruption at the International Rescue Committee (IRC). I would like to take a minute to introduce terms and concepts that are foundational to the IRC’s stated goals to truly highlight the hypocrisy with which this organization operates. According to the Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) section on the IRC’s website, “we are committed to racial and social justice.” The section goes on to state, “we are committed to anti-racism and fighting discrimination, understanding the systemic underpinnings, and recognizing that different parts of the world experience these issues in different ways. Tackling discrimination within the humanitarian sector is not optional.”

The DEI Strategy Document states, “IRC commits to have an inclusive organizational culture where diversity will be championed and represented at all leadership levels. We will have zero tolerance for discrimination, harassment, bullying, and retaliation in any form.” The following terms are included in the glossary section:

Anti-Racism: The active process of identifying and eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational structures, policies, practices, attitudes, personal accountability, etc.

Decolonization: The process of deconstructing colonial ideologies of the superiority and privilege of Western thought and approaches. Decolonization involves dismantling structures that perpetuate the status quo and addressing unbalanced power dynamics. Furthermore, decolonization involves valuing and revitalizing local, indigenous, and non western sources/forms of knowledge and approaches and vetting out settler biases or assumptions that have impacted local ways of being.

Racism: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. It can stem into individual racism which refers to an individual’s racist assumptions, beliefs or behaviors, and structural racism referring to inequalities rooted in the system-wide operation of a society that excludes substantial numbers of members of groups from significant participation in major social institutions.

The IRC claims to be an anti-racist organization, and yet, to this day, has not acknowledged the mere existence of white supremacy within the organization, a culture that is all too prevalent at every level of the organization.

White supremacy: The belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society.

This, minus the white supremacy culture they are yet to acknowledge, is the framework the IRC claims to adhere to. Before I move on to my account, I would like to include a trigger warning for those experiencing white fragility, as the following might induce discomfort and defensiveness on the part of a white person when confronted with information about racial inequality and injustice.

Summary

February 2022

On February 1st, 2022, a Janazah, which is an Islamic funeral, was held for a 16-year-old IRC client. Previously, the family had lost their first son at one of the bases and this was the second son they lost since arriving in the US. It should be noted that the mother of the deceased teenager was understandably distraught, and was livid at the IRC’s presence at her son’s funeral. It was her belief that her son’s death could have been avoided if the IRC had completed appropriate screenings upon their arrival. It should be noted that, to my knowledge, no investigation into the IRC in response to the serious allegations of oversight has occurred. Her statements and accusations were then translated to Pamela Silberman, who at the time had only recently been promoted from Health Program Manager to Resettlement Director. Subsequent to this incident, at the funeral, Pam, publicly belittled two staff of color, in front of other colleagues in attendance. In the following days, she proceeded to detract focus from the tragedy of the boy’s death and the serious allegations raised of the negligence of the IRC to make the funeral a gender equity issue. She singled out male staff of color who attended the funeral, chastising them for not consoling her. Not only was this grossly insensitive in light of the teenager’s death, but it was also critical and disrespectful of Islamic practices. A day after the funeral, three staff of color raised concerns to Natalie El-Diery, Executive Director, who assured staff that this was unacceptable behavior and would be addressed. The following day, Pam, after meeting with Natalie, sent four staff of color an insincere copy-and-pasted apology on Teams.

“Hi ______, it’s come to my attention that you were upset by comments I made

about your presence at the funeral on Wednesday. It certainly was not my

intention to be disrespectful to you, the family, the Islamic faith or any IRC staff

members. I apologize that it came across that way. Please let me know if you’d

like to speak with me directly about this.”

I was one of the recipients of this insincere apology. While I was not subject to Pam’s initial racist outburst at the funeral, she did speak with me the following day in the break room. Pam was compelled to tell me that IRC SLC does not live up to gender equity in practice as I should have consoled her mid-funeral. I reported her within an hour of that conversation, after finding out from a colleague the allegations that had been raised and her behavior at the funeral.

The following week Hannah Oblock, a white colleague who witnessed Pam’s misconduct at the funeral, and I, asked to meet with our program manager, Pam, and Natalie to demand accountability for the recent events. We agreed to meet on February 9th, 2022.

At the start of the meeting, my colleague and I distributed five packets, each containing five incident reports and the four copy-and-pasted apologies, around the table. Natalie’s first question was to ask what we needed in order to move on, and I shared that Pam must resign. For the duration of the hour-long meeting, Pam gaslit and denied all written accounts from predominantly staff of color, claiming that those events did not happen, and that my colleagues and I were all misremembering. Throughout the meeting, Natalie defended Pam and claimed this is the first she’s ever heard of this kind of behavior from Pam, before saying that even if she had been made aware of prior behavior, it would be confidential. Natalie asserted that staff members must report concerns directly to her. Hannah then explained the inherent power dynamics to Natalie and that current mechanisms prevent staff from safely coming forward. Towards the end, I asked Natalie what she was prepared to do to hold Pam accountable. She insisted that dialogue was the only way to move forward. I then followed up by asking how her response would change if new information was brought to light, suggesting an investigation. Natalie said she could not answer that and again, dialogue was the only way to proceed.

A few hours later, I sent an office-wide email to IRC Salt Lake City staff with my incident report. Natalie then replied to all staff that she was in the process of handling this and for the first time shared that staff had another option available, beyond dialogue sessions, by mentioning that the incident could be reported directly to the Ethics and Compliance Unit (ECU).

The following day a leadership meeting was held where Natalie told leadership that the email I sent out was very one-sided and caused more harm than benefit. It should be mentioned that Natalie did not disclose to leadership members that there were other staff accounts, allowing leadership to believe that this was an isolated incident blown out of proportion. Natalie also reached out to the three other staff members who Pam had targeted at the funeral and asked them to meet with her, Pam, and their supervisor despite Hannah informing her, a day prior, of the very real power dynamics staff face.

After I shared my incident report with the SLC office, several staff members individually reached out expressing appreciation, support, and allyship. Some staff voiced personal experiences of harassment perpetrated by Pam. Over the course of the next three months, current and former staff, in double digits, would reveal personal stories of bullying and harassment by Pam, the majority of whom were staff of color. Most never reported their experiences because they mistrusted the system, knew they would not be believed, knew Pam possessed significant power in the office, and feared losing their jobs. Those who did report were told they would have to confront Pam and have dialogue directly with the person that was bullying.

On February 11th, my manager asked to meet with me and we discussed the email that I had sent for over an hour. I was questioned for my motives and I explained my dissatisfaction with the way Natalie conducted the meeting, namely that she defended Pam for the entirety of the meeting and that she refused to initiate disciplinary or investigative actions. Furthermore, Natalie diminished the multiple incident reports on Pam’s behavior as nothing more than a rumor mill. In response, my manager began to defend Natalie, insisting that she was in fact handling the situation through dialogue. When I insisted dialogue was an inappropriate response, my manager accused us of being “extreme.” Frankly, I found the use of this word to be both professionally incorrect but ignorant of the racial undertones, to describe the efforts of a Muslim man advocating for justice in the workplace. I asked my manager not to use that word to describe our request that IRC simply adhere to their own policies when it comes to staff misconduct. After apologizing, my manager asked whether or not the conversation that we were having would be shared publicly. I explained to her that Pam was outed because of her long history and pattern of behavior. Additionally, because Natalie lied about this being the first time she had heard of this behavior from Pam, we needed to establish an irrefutable public record of Pam’s misconduct. Lastly, I explained that for someone to be outed publicly, they would need to cross the threshold of misconduct to the extent that Pam had.

As not to divulge anyone’s identities, I will only share accounts that occurred in public settings. Please note that these accounts are in no way comprehensive to the extent of Pam’s misconduct. Incidents predating the funeral include Pam screaming at interpreters, belittling their intelligence and professional skill sets, making insensitive jokes about cultural identities, and hoarding professional opportunities from people of color.

On February 14th, Hannah sent leadership a collectively written email that stated that the five staff members who wrote an incident report would like to meet with leadership without Pam present, to share their lived experiences. Each staff member signed their name on the email. After some back-and-forth correspondence between Natalie and the group of staff, a meeting was set for the following week.

On February 22nd, Natalie invited a member from headquarters (HQ) to sit in on the meeting as she was leaving the IRC within the month and wanted someone from HQ to have institutional knowledge of the situation. After the five staff members who signed their name to the email relived the events of the funeral, the HQ member asked if there was any possibility of reconciliation. Staff pointed out that Pam had neither taken accountability for her behavior, nor did she recognize why her actions were problematic. We questioned the HQ member why no action had been taken so far. The HQ member said staff members would have to come forward and file reports in order for additional steps to be taken. At this point we revealed that we had in fact provided five incident reports to Natalie over two weeks ago. The HQ member then informed us that Natalie could submit an ECU report on our behalf, and asked us if an investigation was something we would be interested in pursuing. Not only did we accept this offer, but I explained that this was an explicit request that we had made to Natalie two weeks prior. Additionally, Hannah shared that she had submitted an ECU report but received a response from the ECU that the report was not worthy of an investigation.

That same night Natalie sent an email, copying the HQ member, thanking the five staff members for raising concerns and confirmed that she submitted a report to the ECU on their behalf. The staff members waited to hear once an ECU investigator had been confirmed to provide their statements.

Throughout the following weeks, we continued emailing leadership back and forth about Pam’s misconduct and the status of the investigation. Our group continued to write emails collectively and leadership continued to respond.

On February 23rd, I had a check-in with my manager where she shared that Pam was adamant that I deserved a raise. I tried to hide my wave of disgust and discomfort as this felt like a shameless attempt at bribing me into silence. It was insulting that anyone, let alone my direct supervisor, would think that I could be bought. The fact that my manager saw no red flags in the message she was communicating, and the underlying motives behind Pam’s suggestion, deeply alarmed me.

March 2022

On March 9th, during Natalie’s last all-staff meeting, she announced that in her transition plan, Pam, who was at the time under active investigation for misconduct, would facilitate leadership meetings in her stead. This announcement troubled staff who were assured that Pam’s misconduct would be taken seriously. Natalie’s announcement signaled to staff that despite her misconduct, Pam had Natalie’s support. Instead of placing Pam on administrative leave, she elevated her job responsibilities. Since I was not on the call and heard about the announcement from concerned staff, I felt compelled to seek clarification. Later that day I sent a Teams message in the all-staff meeting channel:

“Hi, Natalie El-Diery, sorry I missed all staff due to ESL. Many of us are concerned that there is a conflict of interest with Pam leading future leadership meetings, especially due to the ECU (Ethics and Compliance Unit) investigation into Pam’s years of harassment and discrimination against staff of color. Could you please explain why you feel Pam is the right choice, even after multiple staff members have come forward to share incident reports with you and all of leadership?”

Patrick Poulin, the Regional Director, replied to the message and reminded staff that ECU investigations are confidential.

The next day, Patrick reached out and we met to discuss my message on Teams. During the meeting, he said my comments made to over 100 people were unprofessional. He also said ECU investigations are intended to be confidential. Patrick stated he felt comfortable with Pam continuing in her job responsibilities, including facilitating leadership meetings, while under investigation. At no point during this meeting did Patrick say that we were not allowed to email SLC leadership, as we had been doing multiple times in the weeks prior.

On March 11th, I emailed my questions to SLC leadership, as had been done several times before by other staff members who faced no repercussions, to ask why Pam was selected to facilitate leadership meetings when she was under an active ECU investigation. Patrick replied back and said that I am not allowed to email all of SLC leadership and must direct all questions to Patrick, Natalie, and [HQ member] moving forward.

I then received a meeting invitation from Bethany Jones, Regional HR, with Patrick copied.

On March 14th, I met with Patrick and Bethany. I asked why I was unable to ask questions to leadership when, in the past, our emails covered the ECU investigation into Pam’s misconduct. Patrick could not answer my question and Bethany’s response was that she had sent me a copy of IRC policies and that would serve as my answer. At this point we began to notice a pattern where Patrick and Bethany were unable to answer basic questions, including why I was prohibited from certain inquiries.

At the end of this meeting, I received a written warning that alleged that I was creating a hostile environment in my pursuit of advocating for accountability for Pam’s misconduct and harassment of staff.

This was the first instance of retaliation for three reasons.

1. In the seven-minute conversation that I had with Patrick on March 10th, 2022, he said he found my public comments to over 100 people, problematic. He referred to the email I sent on February 9th, 2022, and the Teams message on March 9th, 2022. These were shared with the entire Salt Lake City office. At no point during the meeting did he mention that the emails sent to leadership were an issue and that I should cease emailing SLC leadership with my questions or concerns
2. The emails between my colleagues and leadership went back and forth for weeks. Patrick and Bethany were copied on at least three of those emails. At no point was I, or anyone else, informed that these emails to leadership, which discussed Pam’s misconduct and the ECU at length, violated IRC policies.
3. All of the previous emails were collectively written and were signed with everyone’s names. In the one instance where only my name was included, I received a written warning.

On March 15th, I had a check-in with my manager. She asked how I felt about the written warning, which she was copied on. I told her it felt retaliatory since Patrick specifically warned about office-wide messages to staff and at no point did he mention that we could no longer email leadership about Pam and the ECU process. After sharing that she was against the all-staff message that I had sent, my manager agreed that she felt the written warning was not warranted and that she would try to follow up with Patrick.

During a June check-in, my manager shared that she did email Patrick in March and that he never replied to her email.

April 2022

On April 14th, a month after meeting with the first investigator, I received an email stating that a new ECU investigator had been assigned to Pam’s case.

June 2022

After two months of waiting to hear from the new investigator, I took the initiative to send an email on June 6th, asking when we could meet.

The following day I received an apology for the delay and that our first meeting was set for June 8th.

When we met I discovered that the current investigator did not have any notes from my two-hour meeting with the previous investigator and that we would have to start from the beginning. I noted concerns over the ECU process. The month’s long delay in launching the investigation paired with the incompetency displayed in the transition of investigators made me question how seriously IRC was taking complaints against Pam for harassment.

In the same month, during one of my check-ins with my manager, the topic shifted to Pam’s misconduct. My manager told me that leadership members were asking when “enough will be enough” and that many are asking who’s next?

July 2022

On July 7th, during an education team meeting with 8–9 staff members, my manager shared that leadership, which is nearly an all-white team, is planning to discuss Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives for our office. I made a simple suggestion that they should open up those meetings to all-staff, in the spirit of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

My manager’s response to a simple, well-meaning, and understandable suggestion was to become visibly upset and flustered. Her overall demeanor took a defensive and argumentative tone, insisting that leadership was entitled to have their own meetings. As I explained that I was merely promoting an idea that would embody actual diversity, equity, and inclusion in a context that specifically warranted it, my manager became increasingly agitated and defensive. Her eyes began to water and her response became more confrontational.

The tension in the room heightened when she said that she was mad at me in front of my colleagues. At this point I became very uncomfortable as I realized that she was misconstruing a general professional suggestion as a personal attack and responding in such an emotional manner.

I then looked to Hannah, who shared that is not how she interpreted my suggestion. My manager slowly started to calm down and then apologized. After the meeting I offered to meet with her individually so that we could talk before I go on vacation. We had a very honest discussion. I told my manager that her response and twisting of my words would discourage other education team members from sharing ideas. She said that’s the very last thing she wanted. After we spoke she sent an apology to the education team:

On July 6th, I received an email from the investigator, after hours, asking for documentation regarding Pam’s misconduct. Before I could respond with the requested documentation, the following morning I received another email from the investigator, before work hours, stating that the ECU investigation had concluded and that the ECU summary and recommendations were shared with RAI senior management.

I emailed the investigator about the timing of the emails I received, and how I was not given any time to provide the requested information. I then asked whether or not documentation would change the outcome of the investigation.

On July 11th, I elaborated on my concerns about sharing more information if the documents have no bearing on the outcome of the investigation since I could be the object of further retaliation from Patrick and Bethany.

I received an email stating:

“Hi Nassef,

Please note that retaliation at the IRC is prohibited — please submit all documentation you have regarding Pamela and any additional documentation regarding retaliation.

Thank you.”

On July 12th, I emailed the investigator a 39-pg document containing Pam’s misconduct from only five staff members and Patrick and Bethany’s retaliation. It’s important to point out that my documentation includes five staff members because from February to July we had over 10 current and former staff members come forward to share incidents of Pam bullying, harassing, and discriminating against them. For anyone outside of the initial five staff members from the funeral, we referred them to the investigator for an interview. However, when we followed up with these individuals, multiple key witnesses shared that they had not even been interviewed despite the fact that we had shared with the investigator that these individuals have accounts to report.

On July 19th, Patrick emailed the Salt Lake City office:

“Dear IRC SLC Team,

This note is to share that Pam Silberman has resigned and her last day of work will be August 10th. I will be assuming Pam’s responsibilities until her replacement is found.

I hope you will join me to wish Pam well in her future endeavors, and to thank her for her service to our mission.

Best Regards,

Patrick”

On August 8th, I had a meeting with Patrick, Bethany, and my program manager, Krysti Nellermore, in which my employment at IRC was terminated. Krysti, reading off of a script, began by saying that we all share similar goals of accountability. The primary reason for my termination was her claim that I had removed a staff member from an IRC Teams thread, titled the People’s Way. I pointed out that I never removed him from a Teams channel, but rather an external WhatsApp group chat. Bethany interrupted and said that she actually had documentation, which she never presented in the meeting. Krysti continued reading from her script, saying that she would leave room at the end of our meeting for questions.

Before I continue here is the additional context for why I removed this individual from the private WhatsApp group:

In November 2021, I reported this individual to my manager, Krysti, for harassing a female colleague. After I came back from my vacation in December, Krysti alerted me that she, her supervisor, and another senior leader all met with this individual and she believed this behavior would stop.

That same week we had an all-staff training with DEI consultants. During this call, this individual shared a story about how he was once banned from a dorm area after women expressed he made them uncomfortable. He attributed this entirely to racism.

The following day, on December 16th, 2021, I sent my manager a message on Teams:

“Good morning Krysti, I wanted to follow-up on yesterday’s workshop. I think [REDACTED] is using this space to garner sympathy from his colleagues who aren’t familiar with the several instances of him making women in our office uncomfortable, and to pressure women who have/will feel uncomfortable to not report it. I’m concerned this could take a turn for the worst if it’s not revisited and I’d like to help any way I can. Initially I was thinking of having a one-on-one with him, but I’d like to hear your thoughts first. While he may have appeared receptive with his meeting with management, he clearly showed defensive behavior yesterday by highlighting a story that happened a few years ago, with young women saying he displayed aggressive behavior and him attributing it to racism. I’m noticing a pattern. I don’t think [REDACTED] has bad intent, but being unaware of how your actions come across could result in the same result and since I’m aware of what’s happening I know I can’t sit back.”

Krysti responded:

“Hi Nassef Mohsen Ali I was also feeling a bit strange about the timing of the story with a conversation regarding the incident the same week. Let me first touch base with [senior leader] and [senior leader] to see if he thinks we should follow-up first. I appreciate you chiming into the thread yesterday and for thinking through ways to set stronger boundaries.”

During our check-in, Krysti shared that her supervisor did not feel that any follow-up action was necessary but that if another incident occurred then this individual could face termination.

Fast forward to June 30th: another female colleague shared that she was not comfortable with this individual in the external WhatsApp group chat, as he had previously harassed her. In response to this, I removed him from the group.

The following day Krysti asked me why I removed him from Teams. I immediately corrected her and said it was a WhatsApp group. I told her that he had harassed at least ten women, that we knew of, in our office. Inexplicably playing devil’s advocate, Krysti asked me how I could be so sure that he harassed those women, and suggested that I should have met with him first. Krysti continued that I can’t “cancel” people for making mistakes. For the record, the mistake in question was not a one-off, trivial, administrative error, but 10 female staff members coming forward to detail harassment they had faced by this staff member. My response entailed nothing more than quietly removing this staff member from a private, entirely external, WhatsApp group chat.

After reminding Krysti that I had, in fact, offered to meet with him back in December but was told alternative measures would be taken, I expressed my discomfort with this individual working on our team. At the very least, I suggested that he should be working out of the office while this was being looked into. This suggestion was shot down by Krysti as she alleged that this staff member was not as productive when he worked from home. Shortly after this conversation, he was put on administrative leave in July but ultimately quit before they could complete the necessary paperwork to fire him.

Back to the August 8th meeting:

Patrick said that the IRC does not tolerate “cancel culture” and this was my third offense. Once Krysti and Bethany had completed reciting their scripts, I explained that this was clearly fabricated evidence and that their claim could easily be disproved, and requested to see the documentation that Bethany alleged that they had. Bethany said that she was under no legal obligation to share her evidence with me. Per her understanding, she continued, it was an IRC Teams channel, and that by removing him from this non-existent channel I had created a hostile work environment.

Despite advocating for myself and denying their false accusations against me, Bethany then went on to say that, for full transparency, it was not the action itself, but the dialogue and behaviors that potentially have the “perception of defaming” someone’s character. Bethany also rejected my request to have the reason for my termination in writing via a follow up email. Again, she reiterated that she was not legally obligated to do so and so she would not.

Effectively, the reason for my termination was that I was creating a hostile work environment by quietly removing a serial harasser from an external group chat to accommodate the women who had experienced such harassment. The employment of said serial harasser was never actually terminated by the IRC.

Given the ludicrous explanation for, and the timing of, my termination, not to mention the fabricated, perhaps even non-existent, evidence, it is clear that my termination was pure retaliation for my advocacy and the role I played in exposing Pamela Silberman’s long history of harassment in the workplace.

Analysis

The International Rescue Committee has a clear anti-retaliation policy which states:

“The IRC will not tolerate retaliation against anyone who, in good faith, reports a concern or participates in an investigation, even if the allegation ultimately is not substantiated.

Anyone, regardless of position or tenure, found to have engaged in retaliatory conduct against someone who has raised an ethics or compliance concern will be subject to disciplinary action, and possible termination. If you feel you have been subjected to retaliation, you should contact the Hotline for assistance.”

Are we supposed to believe that my firing, exactly two days before Pam’s official last day, was anything but retaliation for successfully holding Pam accountable for her years of racist misconduct?

Nepotism: The practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.

In June, a group of IRC staff went to a resettlement conference in Seattle. Pam disclosed that Patrick was her first boss. That would mean that their relationship dates back decades.

Double Standard: A rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to a group of different people

On September 1st, the IRC hosted a goodbye party for Pam. According to staff, Pam complained that she was treated unfairly and then voluntarily disclosed the recommendations from the ECU investigation. Pam explained how she was told she could no longer remain in a role at the IRC where she could supervise any staff. This omission implies that despite the ECU investigator interviewing over ten individuals, who experienced bullying, harassment, and discrimination, termination was never on the table for this racist white woman.

Bethany’s logic for firing me was that this was the third incident where I was trying to “cancel” someone and that my advocacy was creating a hostile work environment. Let’s push past her flawed premise and focus on the logic itself. It took only three instances in a span of a few months to fire me, but Pam could target over ten staff members, that we know of, over the course of years and still have the option to continue employment at the IRC following an ECU investigation into her behavior.

Conflict of Interest: Occurs when an individual’s personal interests, family, friendships, financial, or social factors could compromise his or her judgment, decisions, or actions in the workplace.

Since Pam established that she and Patrick knew each other for decades, shouldn’t he have recused himself from any decision-making capacity as it pertains to Pam and those involved with the investigation?

Abuse of Power: The misuse of a position of power to take unjust advantage of individuals, organizations, or governments

Patrick used his position to shield Pam from accountability, and once he ultimately failed he used his position of power to retaliate against me.

Cover Up: Try to hide the fact of illegal or illicit activity.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):

“It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person’s race or color.

Harassment can include, for example, racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person’s race or color, or the display of racially-offensive symbols. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.”

It is illegal to racially discriminate and harass employees and clients. We know individuals in the double digits who reported that Pam had harassed them and had reported the harassment. Natalie and Patrick were both aware of these reports, and each time did nothing to prevent future harassment.

Retaliation: Occurs when an employer (through a manager, supervisor, administrator, or directly) fires an employee or takes any other type of adverse action against an employee for engaging in protected activity.

Furthermore, according to the EEOC:

“The EEO laws prohibit punishing job applicants or employees for asserting their rights to be free from employment discrimination including harassment. Asserting these EEO rights is called ‘protected activity,’ and it can take many forms. For example, it is unlawful to retaliate against applicants or employees for:

• Filing or being a witness in an EEO charge, complaint, investigation, or lawsuit
• Communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment
• Answering questions during an employer investigation of alleged harassment
• Refusing to follow orders that would result in discrimination
• Resisting sexual advances, or intervening to protect others
• Requesting accommodation of a disability or for a religious practice
• Asking managers or co-workers about salary information to uncover potentially discriminatory wages”

If the IRC and the ECU are unwilling to follow employment laws, perhaps employees should seek out filing with the EEOC.

Corruption: Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power.

I was terminated with fabricated evidence. Patrick, Bethany, and Krysti all claimed to have documentation that I removed an employee from an IRC Teams channel. I corrected them multiple times and they persisted in their dishonesty, however, unlike them, I actually have evidence that shows I removed him from a WhatsApp channel on June 30th:

(Screenshot of private WhatsApp chat, where he was removed.)

Incompetence: Inability to do something successfully; ineptitude.

Corruption is not always correlated with incompetence. Fortunately, that is not the case at the IRC. Many of us working at the IRC would constantly ask ourselves how those in power could be so inept. Time and time again, these corrupt individuals would illustrate that their incompetence and reckless negligence has no bounds. Ultimately, their misconduct was and, no doubt still is, in abundance, easy to document, and revealing of a pattern of white supremacy culture.

Here are the four most prominent white supremacy characteristics I found while at the IRC:

Fear of Open Conflict:

• People in power are scared of conflict and try to ignore it or run from it
• When someone raises an issue that causes discomfort, the response is to blame the person for raising the issue rather than to look at the issue which is actually causing the problem
• Equating the raising of difficult issues with being impolite, rude, or out of line

Power Hoarding:

• Little value around sharing power
• Those with power feel threatened when anyone suggests changes in how things should be done in the organization
• Those with power don’t see themselves as hoarding power or as feeling threatened
• Those with power assume they have the best interests of the organization at heart and assume those wanting change are ill-informed, emotional, inexperienced

Paternalism:

• Decision-making is clear to those with power and unclear to those without it
• Those with power think they are capable of making decisions for and in the interests of those without power
• Those with power often don’t think it is important or necessary to understand the viewpoint or experience of those for whom they are making decisions
• Those without power do not really know how decisions get made and who makes what decisions, and yet they are completely familiar with the impact of those decisions on them

Defensiveness:

• The organizational structure is set up and much energy is spent trying to protect power as it exists
• Because of either/or thinking, criticism of those with power is viewed as threatening and inappropriate (or rude)
• People respond to new or challenging ideas with defensiveness, making it very difficult to raise these ideas
• A lot of energy in the organization is spent trying to make sure that people’s feelings aren’t getting hurt or working around defensive people
• The defensiveness of people in power creates an oppressive culture

Last year, a Guardian article was published, which highlighted white supremacy culture at the IRC. Despite all the DEI work championed, and the costly farce of an “independent” investigation, this organization continues to uphold white supremacy culture. At the IRC Salt Lake City office alone, many of my colleagues and I, witnessed several leadership members creating a hostile work environment that allowed those in power to believe they could cause harm by bullying, harassing, and discriminating against employees of color with impunity.

Closing Thoughts

The resignation of Pam Silberman was a result of staff members who united and relentlessly advocated for each other, no matter the cost. Despite the immediate retaliation that I faced for my part in advocating for my colleagues, I consider her resignation to serve as a testament to the power IRC staff have to affect positive change in dismantling white supremacy. None of the staff members who advocated for those who faced Pam’s harassment were in leadership positions, but they did more to advocate for one another and to hold Pam accountable for her despicable behavior than any member of leadership.

In reality, leadership is filled with those who behave as bystanders and not as leaders. Perhaps this speaks to the IRC’s ability to reward those who are not willing to speak out against the status quo with promotions? Or, perhaps this speaks to the lack of authority placed in the hands of these individuals? In any case, the leadership group has time and time again proven that it leads very little when staff raise grave concerns. Instead, it blindly follows the directives provided by those at the very top and has no real authority or precedent to take initiative to advocate for staff members. Truly the main take away from removing Pam Silberman from the IRC is that together, staff members have more capacity and power to act as leaders.

My story is not the only one of its kind here at the IRC. Many staff members have come forward to share their experiences, and I know that there are many more who have yet to come forward. Given the IRC’s established reputation of retaliation, it is understandable why people choose silence over justice. Enduring a toxic work environment in which harassment is normalized can be a very draining and traumatizing experience. But I would like to urge all of you who have, and continue to, endure this kind of hostile work environment to come forward and share your stories and to help reveal the true nature of this organization. If you can’t share your story publicly, circulate resources amongst your colleagues that could encourage others to step forward. Find other ways to contribute to supporting your colleagues. At the very least, I urge you all not to normalize the venomously toxic environment that is perpetrated by senior leadership members who uplift racists and white supremacy culture and who shamelessly employ intimidation tactics against its staff.

Sincerely,

Nassef Mohsen Ali