To the editor:
Regarding the August 7, 2025 article “Local nonprofit apparently fired longtime employee over Palestine activism”:
This is a pretty sad piece of journalism, honestly. The Independent has essentially published one-sided tabloid gossip knowing full well that Passion Works could not issue any kind of substantive challenge to allegations without publicly diving headlong into HR matters, which would be ugly and unethical. Despite this, the Independent could have done a better job of explicitly detailing the precarious position non-profits are in with respect to donors and funding, spelling out why Mitchell and the PW board were likely unable to comment.
Kington seems to have gotten really lost in musings about anti-semitism vs zionism and demonstrations around the rights of Palestine which I understand is politically salient; Kington seems enamored with Epling’s activism in so much as they lost sight that the story they were writing—about a disgruntled manager questioning volunteers about their religion—was less than newsworthy (and also inappropriate for a workplace that prides itself on welcomeness and inclusivity; note that questioning a religious minority about their religion is neither an act of welcome or inclusion). To be clear, it is possible that Epling’s words to the student volunteers regarding their Jewish faith were in no way meant to be pressuring or provocative; we will never know since this appears to be the one time she forgot to record her workplace conversations.
Still, the article reads like a profile in courage featuring Epling’s demonstration in Licking County that resulted in a 30-day stint in county jail, which I will note did nothing for Gaza nor did it register as anything but a feather in the hat of self-aggrandizement. If there is a story here, it’s about how Epling’s alleged behaviors (as called out multiple times over months for being challenging towards staff and volunteers) could and did impact the Passion Works brand and the mission-based work they do. The Athens Independent hasn’t made news with this article, only promoted Epling as she grinds her axe. In a time and place where we need real thoughtful and independent journalism, this article provided neither.
From the get go, the article attempts to force a comparison that equates someone makes signs for a political party to an actual arrest for “multiple charges.” It attempts to build a case of hypocrisy between an individual who used their artistic talents to create props for progressive moments to a staff member allegedly questioning volunteers on the job, making situationally inappropriate comments, and not considering the impacts of their actions. Epling’s behavior may have posed a real risk to the PW brand given her leadership role in the organization and that she questioned student volunteers about their religion while on the clock. The Independent quickly glossed over the charges against Epling before her plea deal, further suggesting their intent to downplay any responsibility by Epling for her decisions.
Editor Colbert’s attempt to defend Kington’s article as “shin[ing] a light on things the public often doesn’t see” is disappointing. I whole heartedly support scrutiny of public leadership, however it should be done in a way that fairly addresses the complexity of organizational funding (and the risks high profile employees can do to it), defense of brand value and the need for an organization to protect it, as well as the ethics of third parties (like The Independent) using unauthorized recordings curated by involved parties (especially when nothing illegal appears to have occurred). I have no doubt that Kington and Colbert’s hearts were in the right place as they pursued a perceived injustice, however over the course of the 6 months the article was being researched I suspect they allowed the drama and sensationalism to overtake their objectivity and clarity; ultimately, after investing lots of time and resources they failed to see how there simply wasn’t “a there there.”
I generally appreciate Kington’s careful analysis in describing complex and difficult matters. I regularly enjoy Colbert’s thoughtfulness and commitment to independent and unbiased journalism. I think this time they missed the mark by trying to create a sensational tale about injustice, local conspiracy, and the silencing of who they perceived as a protagonist activist—a sad exaggeration. Cutting through the hyperbole, this appears to be little more than an employee who was asked on numerous occasions to consider the impact of her behavior on volunteers, donors, and the organization’s brand. Instead, it appears as though she admittedly refused to temper her words and behavior on numerous occasions.
Having worked up close with Mitchell for many years now and having bore witness to her constant willingness to meet people where they are and assume the good in all, I have no doubt that she was genuinely “heartbroken” over the situation. As for this reader, I wouldn’t say I am heartbroken but at least disappointed in the Independent’s failure to see the damage to its own brand when it headlines an often meandering, simple tale of a disgruntled employee as though it’s newsworthy. I hope we can expect better investigative journalism in the future.
Paul Patton
Albany, OH
