Meet Danielle N. Lee, author of the blog "Urban Scientist," hosted by Scientific American.

If you haven't heard of Lee already, here's the backstory: She was recently asked by an editor named "Ofek" of the scientific site Biology-Online if she would be interested in blogging for them. When she asked for further details, including how much they paid their guest bloggers, the editor responded that the opportunity could provide traffic and exposure, but no payment. Lee politely declined the offer from Ofek, who penned a horrifying response: "Because we don't pay for blog entries? Are you an urban scientist or an urban whore?"

Even absent the continual debate about writing for free in online spaces, Lee's experience points to something deeper: It's hard to argue that Ofek would have responded to a white male writer in the same way he responded to her.

...

By calling Lee an "urban whore," the Biology-Online editor was essentially chastising her for not taking what she could get. The editor couldn't possibly understand how this black woman wouldn't jump at the chance to work for free, given that women of color are so rarely featured in publications, scientific or otherwise. This offensive slur reinforces the notion that women of color should be thrilled with the meager scraps they are thrown, and that they should smile and nod while doing so.

Biology-Online reports that "Ofek" the editor has been fired, and rightly so. But the fact that someone felt entitled enough to represent the site while so viciously deriding a black female scientist speaks volumes to little regarded women of color are in this context. Perhaps Ofek thought that Lee would silently take the slur, as women of color are so often expected to do. Or perhaps Ofek assumed that even if Lee did go public with the horrific incident, that the scientific community wouldn't take it seriously. Given that Lee's original post on her "Urban Scientist" blog was originally deleted by Scientific American because the post wasn't considered germane to the topic of discussing science, this assertion wasn't completely wrong. In response to public outcry, the post has since been re-instated.