A few in March people associated with the institute raised concerns about Massachi to the chief financial officer of Charles River, an outside company that provides HR services to nonprofits. In telephone conversations with a human resources representative, they alleged that Massachi was often blunt and rude to women, especially women of color, and marked the document they had written as “How We Work.” They claimed that some women who left the institute did so in part because their working relationship with it had deteriorated.
When the institute convened for a retreat in New York in behind schedule March, Charles River was still processing complaints. During the meeting, a moderator hired by the institute from the consulting firm Brighter Strategies tried to get the team to define clear goals for the next few years. But as the group huddled around the conference table, with Massachi and Allen sitting apart, it seemed the pair were once again offering competing priorities. During one hastily announced 45-minute break, the host gathered privately with Allen and Massachi, hoping to resolve the impasse. “It just got to a boiling point where we weren’t moving forward and they sensed it,” one source said.
For several weeks, as HR’s investigation continued, Massachi was barely seen or heard by institute staff. That left Allen calling the shots, including a tough decision about content moderation during one weekend in April on the nonprofit’s Slack platform. Though the institute offers advice to technology platforms when setting its content policy, the digital community had no specific guidelines on what could be posted beyond general guidelines codes of conduct and an oath of integrity to members and employees.
The debate began when a member of the institute’s external network wrote on a channel apparent to all staff, contributors and members that as integrity professionals “we can do better” by acknowledging the death of Palestinian civilians during the war and creating spaces where a person can operate terms such as “genocide” without the risk of dismissal.
Rachel Townsend, the institute’s up-to-date executive director, quickly posted a message expressing support for the sentiment, and about 15 other people responded to the original Slack post with “heartiness.” But another outside member reacted with frustration, describing the original post as “full of half-truths and… anti-Semitic tropes” and lacking acknowledgment of the atrocities suffered by Israelis, including the ongoing hostage crisis. The fiery post questioned the misinformation-spotting skills of other members who liked the original post.
After the member who started the discussion publicly demanded an explanation, Allen wrote that he and colleagues had determined that the conversation was necessary but “would not proceed in a way that would constructively benefit our community.” He added that he began to regret deleting the posts, telling others internally that he could have instead created a up-to-date forum dedicated to having tough conversations. “In hindsight, I see that we overreacted out of fear and in a way that did not honor you and the important conversation you were having, as well as the concerns of those who were made uncomfortable by it,” Allen wrote in his public response to the member, who kicked out of the question. “We apologize for that.”
Allen feared that this dizzying episode might lead some members to feel that the institute was no more a place to encourage open discussion than giants like Google and Meta — tech giants whose missteps have inspired many of the nonprofit’s employees and supporters to joining her cause. Both companies reprimanded or protested employees who flagged or protested company actions they perceived as supporting Israel.