Worthy organizations and inspiring leaders need scrutiny, too

I expect that some of you will be upset about our story on Nancy Epling’s firing from Passion Works earlier this year. 

Let me be clear: Passion Works is a great organization that empowers disabled individuals. It exists because of Patty Mitchell’s vision and drive. It’s entirely worthy of your support. 

But a worthy mission does not exempt an organization, nor its inspirational leader, from scrutiny. Individual contributions comprised 46% of Passion Works’ 2023 revenue; nearly 40% came from sales. The public should know how a charitable organization conducts the business that has their support — just as it should know about the workings of the government funded by their tax dollars.

In this case, a longtime employee of a nonprofit organization was fired for alleged religious discrimination, and two other staff members quit in protest.  

Free speech in the private sphere can have consequences (ask me how I know). What makes Nancy Epling’s situation troubling is the appearance of a double standard: Leadership can engage in high-profile political activism that is not directly related to the organization’s mission, but staff members, apparently, may not — especially when that activism may upset key donors and/or leadership’s friends. That’s despite the fact that the studio publicly champions “good trouble.”

The Israel/Palestine issue complicates matters further. Few issues in current events are more fraught than the Gaza War: To many people, criticizing Israel in any way equals anti-Semitism. This pervasive, pernicious belief has made it difficult — even dangerous — to express support for Palestinians or protest Israel’s war. This is clear in the Trump Administration’s crackdown on Palestine solidarity activists — and in Epling’s termination for alleged religious discrimination, apparently based on her activism against Israel’s war and related statements.

I have little doubt that if Epling had questioned volunteers overheard supporting Blue Lives Matter, or missed work after being arrested at a George Floyd protest, she’d still be working at Passion Works. 

Dani Kington spent much of the last six months poring over a recording of a two-hour meeting between Epling and Mitchell; interviewing multiple sources at length, and trying to secure interviews with others; writing and revising the story to ensure the sequence of events is easy to follow; and further revising the story after it was reviewed by attorneys with Case Western Reserve University’s First Amendment law clinic.   

If this story upset or angered you, I understand. The fact is, we wouldn’t be doing our jobs if we’re not making people mad or uncomfortable sometimes. We’ve taken heat from conservatives (who tend to view us as inherently liberal) and from liberals (who feel betrayed by unflatting coverage of progressive organizations or Democratic officials). 

Journalism shines a light on things the public often doesn’t see. Everyone likes it best when that spotlight hits something cheerful or inspiring, or that aligns with their personal views. If we opted to shield you from things that you may not like — even when it could make you withdraw support — this wouldn’t be a newsroom. It’d be a PR agency.