Podcast Academy Removes Lewis From Board

This is an archived page from 2022. Find out more

It was just last week that The Podcast Academy announced its new board members, podcast industry veteran Daniel J. Lewis was one of them. Over the weekend, The Academy announced Lewis was removed from the board. Here’s why…

A change.org petition was started aimed at putting pressure on The Podcast Academy to remove Lewis from their board. The petition highlighted this tweet from Lewis. The tweet was then followed by a firestorm of follow-up tweets from people who disagreed with Lewis’ tweet or were offended by it. He eventually deleted it.

The Podcast Academy, shortly after the tweet and the petition, removed Lewis from their board and posted the statement bekow.

There was no official tally of who voted which way on removing Lewis. The board voted to remove Daniel during a ZOOM call. The majority of board members and Lewis were on the call. He was given the opportunity to share his thoughts, then board members also shared their views. The board had additional discussions without Lewis. He was then brought back on the call and presented the option of resigning. If he did not resign, the board would vote on his removal, which they did.

We also reached out to Lewis for a comment. He said he had no comment at this time but would provide one to us at a later date. He also posted to Twitter that he would be taking a break from the social media platform.

There are 18 members of The Podcast Academy Executive Committee….well now there are 17, minus Lewis.

Comments:

Alexander Herrmann - May 1, 2022

Good. The podcast community does not need a person like that serving on the Board of TPA.

Well, THAT’S being “inclusive” isn’t it. Someone doesn’t like a particular tweet or belief of someone and every piece of earth is turned over to rid the organization of the alleged wrong-think. Sounds like this group thinks it’s another Academy Awards organization.

Spot on

Wasn’t Daniel arguing for the inclusiveness of blacks and women by arguing they should not be aborted? He was arguing AGAINST the description of women and blacks in the womb - how is that a bad thing? Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic specifically to abort blacks - she was a racist. Daniel is arguing against racism and sexism in his tweet, but all anyone ever saw was the pro-life vs pro-choice argument and immediately demonized him. Daniel, if you are reading this, you are better off without such obtuse people surrounding you.

against the *destruction* of women and blacks in the womb. Sorry about that.

We’re not talking about 100 years ago, we’re talking about the here and now. Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics (which was common in both “liberal” and “conservative” camps in the early 1900s) is no more relevant to the current legal status of abortion than Henry Ford’s virulent anti-Semitism is to whether or not it’s morally acceptable to buy a Ford today. Daniel is entitled to his opinions regarding the abortion issue. It doesn’t sound like he got kicked from the PA board for that. He is not the victim of having a “wrong opinion.” But where he crossed the line was jumping into another person’s Twitter replies unsolicited and unnecessarily attacking her, by calling her and anyone who has sought an abortion “barbaric,” which is dehumanizing language to describe women and girls who have dealt with a decision that is often much more difficult than anti-abortion advocates purport it to be. And by the way, this line of argument that Daniel (and you) use that you’re the real progressives for fighting for “blacks” (which is a tell) in the womb is extremely problematic. Abortions don’t magically happen. There are women and girls, including Black women and girls, who choose to terminate their pregnancies. Those who claim to care about the “blacks in the womb” don’t seem to care about the disproportionately high maternal mortality rates among Black women, even when controlling for economics. Those who claim to care about the “blacks in the womb” don’t bother to listen to actual Black women and girls and their reasons why they may terminate their pregnancies, and don’t support policy that would address those reasons. Instead, most rely on stereotypes and generalizations, and think they know how to solve these issues more than those it affects first hand. Daniel’s underlying argument that simply by being anti-abortion, he is a greater supporter of Black lives than actual Black people (not “blacks”) is patronizing, virtue-signaling, and gross, not to mention untrue.