WaPo fashion critic Robin Givhan is said to have "violated a sacred trust between women, black women" — "a complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code"

The quotes — at Page Six — are from Jamilah Lemieux, who criticized Givhan for attending and writing about a BET Network event that had Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett on stage, talking about things like doing that White House vegetable garden so as not to seem like an angry black woman.

Lemieux later told us, “As I recall, at the start of the event, we were told that were in ‘safe space’ and to put our phones away. That, to me, is a clear indication that no one was to be reporting on this moment. Furthermore, I am surprised that Ms. Givihan thought that she was invited to the conference to serve in her capacity as a reporter considering that she was to serve on a panel and, thus, had her travel and accommodations covered by the organizers.... It is unfortunate that Ms. Givhan did not recognize that she was invited because she is a journalist of note and was thought to be someone who would benefit from the connections we have made and/or strengthened here this week. The expectation was, ostensibly, that she would be a great addition to this sister circle — not someone who made an outsider of herself by revealing things that were shared here.”

BET reacted to Givhan's column by kicking her out of the conference and cancelling the panel she had been invited to moderate. BET paid her expenses and now characterizes her as an "invited... guest (not working press)" and says "She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship." Was she made to sign an agreement that she would not report on the event?  It sounds as though BET wanted the prestige of Givhan's attendance and did not explicitly restrict her, and she used her access like the journalist she is. The idea that events with important political figures talking about politics should be treated in a special confidential way is ridiculous.

Sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship? Politics is not religion and when it starts acting like it is, be alarmed.

If the event is off the record, and you've invited journalists, you need to make it clear that it's off the record. Declaring the room a "safe space" is vague bullshit, not, as Lemieux says, "a clear indication that no one was to be reporting on this moment." And putting phones away isn't a clear indication of anything other than a desire that the audience pay attention and not be rude.

Lemieux declares that Givhan was invted because she "was thought to be someone who would benefit from the connections." I doubt if Givhan saw it that way. I assume she thinks she is a big deal and that other people benefit from getting to connect with her! The presumption should be that it was worth it to her because she'd get material for her column, not that she's attending for sisterhood. But if you want to make it more of a religion-y concept and require sincere motives of sisterhood, you need to lay that out clearly, not spout puffy fluff like "safe space."

As for "Black girl code" — I'll have to look that up. I'm not a member of the purported religion. But I'm interested in the way human beings define themselves into groups and then discipline those they've appropriated as members. In that light, the conference name is fascinating: "Leading Women Defined." Fascinating and mind-bendingly ambiguous.

The Robin Givhan column is "Michelle Obama wanted to gain the public’s trust. So she started with a garden." I suspect that some of the anger is because the column isn't fawning enough. But I'll do a separate post about the substance of the column.