In an email to The Michigan

Daily, an IBM spokesperson
wrote that IBM established
history’s
first
corporate

“equal
opportunity
policy”

in
1953,
which
prohibited

discrimination on the basis
of “race, color and creed.”
However, the spokesperson
wrote that the company did
not specifically protect non-
cisgender
individuals,
like

Conway, until 2002.

Conway told The Daily

“she lived her life in stealth”
after IBM. She resumed her
research
career
at
other

technological
companies

under her new identity as
a woman until she “quietly
came out” as transgender
by creating a website while
working as a professor at the
University in 1999.

Conway could have ended

her
connection
to
IBM

entirely. However, she said
she felt compelled to contact
them
again
around
1999

and gain permission to self-
publish the research she had
done while employed by the
company.

“I realized I had to come

out more widely,” Conway
said. “I was worried about
my deadname being on their
papers.”

Conway said IBM allowed

her to post the documents on
her website, but they did not
formally express any regrets
for firing her at the time.

Meanwhile,
Conway’s

website
was
gaining

worldwide attention, and not
only from fellow engineers.
Other transgender individuals
also began to regard her as a
mentor.

“More
and
more
trans

people
around
the
world

were learning about my story
because my web pages back
then were one of the few blog
sites that trans people around
the world went to,” Conway
said. “My page was translated
by volunteer translators into
many languages … it was part
of the Trans Revolution.”

Tara
Maclachlan,
the

vice president of industrial
internet of things strategy
at Inmarsat, a technology
company
in
the
United

Kingdom, has been virtually
following
Conway’s
story

since 2000. Maclachlan, like
Conway, is a trans woman
working in a STEM field,
and she has also previously
worked with IBM.

Maclachlan told The Daily

she feels a deep connection
to
Conway
because
of

their similarities. She said
Conway’s story has inspired
her to proudly publicize her
own gender identity and to
pursue happiness in her work
and personal life.

“I think Lynn is one of my

true role models,” Maclachlan
said. “I don’t use that word
lightly. I think the fact that
she stood up for what she
believed in before it was even
close to being commonplace is
such an inspiration.”

Maclachlan also had the

chance to hear Conway speak
at a technology conference
in Washington D.C., a couple
years ago. Maclachlan said
it was empowering to see an
openly transgender woman
acknowledged for her work at
a large-scale conference.

Besides
re-asserting
her

place in the technological
industry
after
years
of

invisibility,
Conway
has

also shared her story with
students at the University.

Charles Cohen, the current

chief
technology
officer

of
the
Cybernet
Systems

Corporation in Ann Arbor,
received his Ph.D. from the
University in 1996. Conway
was his dissertation adviser.

Cohen said working with

Conway was a life-changing
experience. Academically, he
said Conway challenged him
as a writer and a thinker, but
she remains his mentor in
everything from work to dirt
biking.

“She dirt bikes — I bet you

didn’t know that about her,”
Cohen said before laughing.
“She always lives on the edge
of everything she does. She
takes very calculated risks,
but she certainly takes risks.

If there’s no chance of failure,
it’s boring.”

University students are still

discovering Conway’s story
today. LSA junior Noah Streng
said he became fascinated
with her story when Forbes
first reported IBM’s apology.

“As
a
member
of
the

LGBTQ+ community, it is
incredibly inspiring to see
people
like
Dr.
Conway

overcome so much adversity
and be such a pioneer for
social
change,
breaking

barriers for LGBTQ+ people
everywhere,” Streng said.

Throughout the next 20

years, more IBM employees
became
familiar
with

Conway’s story via her website
and social media presence. In
particular, Diane Gherson, a
senior vice president at IBM,
wrote in an email to The Daily
that she first heard the story
this past summer on Conway’s
wiki page.

“I
was
stunned
and

heartbroken,” Gherson wrote.

Two decades after their

last contact, IBM suddenly
reached out to Conway again
to invite her to headline
a
public
company
event

on Oct. 14. At the virtual
event, Conway was officially
awarded the prestigious IBM
Lifetime Achievement Award
which
signifies
that
she

“changed the world through
technological inventions.”

After
celebrating
her

technological achievements,

Gherson, who also hosted the
event, personally apologized
to Conway on behalf of the
company half a century after
she was fired.

“I wanted to say to you

here today, Lynn, for that
experience in our company
52 years ago and all the
hardships that followed, I am
truly sorry,” Gherson said at
the event.

Gherson
went
on
to

describe the changes IBM
has made to their policies for
LGBTQ+
inclusion,
which

includes a firm-wide health
care plan that helps cover
gender-affirming
related

care.

“I’m confident in saying …

you would have been treated
quite
differently
today,”

Gherson said to Conway. “But
all that doesn’t help you, Lynn
… So, we’re here today not only
to celebrate you as a world-
renowned innovator and IBM
alum, but also to learn from
you, and by doing so, create a
more inclusive workplace and
society.”

Lynn joked to The Daily

that though she was a “good
spy”
—
alluding
to
her

long history of hiding her
transgender identity — she
could not contain the visible
emotion that came to her face
when she heard the apology.

“It was done in such an

obviously
heartfelt
and

authentic way that, at first,
I was kind of speechless

because I did not expect an
apology,” Conway said.

Ella
Slade,
the
global

LGBT+
leader
at
IBM,

attended the Oct. 14 event. In
an email to The Daily, Slade
wrote that Conway’s emotion
was shared by the LGBT+
employees watching.

“The IBM trans community

look up to Lynn and are
familiar with her story, so this
moment was truly healing,”
Slade wrote. “Lynn made a
comment at one point about
her joining this IBM event
was like returning home, and
it’s hard not to get choked up
hearing that.”

The
apology
may
have

come 52 years after the fact,
but Conway told The Daily
she feels this moment in time
— and now her story — has
become part of a revolution in
social acceptance. For her, the
apology has become a symbol
of her and IBM recognizing
their “joint humanity” and
celebrating how far they both
have come.

“The thing is, this story

is not entirely about me, or
even about IBM,” Conway
said. “We’re the messengers.
Our story is a lesson: you can
never take for granted that
you really know what you’re
doing now and how it will
affect the future. It’s a new
kind of social awareness.”

Daily
News
Contributor

Roni Kane can be reached at
ronikane@umich.edu.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
News
Wednesday, December 2, 2020 — 3

APOLOGY
From Page 1

But her goal was always

to return to Cambodia. After
receiving
her
law
degree

from
the
University,
Seng

returned to her birth country.
Eventually,
she
ended
up

working for several years at the
Center for Social Development,
a prominent nongovernmental
organization in Cambodia.

Public
Policy
professor

John Ciorciari, an expert on
international law who worked
on memory and justice efforts
in Cambodia, praised Seng’s
advocacy.

“Everyone in the sector

knows Theary,” Ciorciari said.
“She’s a very vocal opponent
of the government, and has
been courageous in criticizing
the government even during
these last several years when
criticizing
the
government

has been a particularly risky
proposition.”

Her fight in opposition to

Cambodia’s government has
required personal sacrifices.
Seng decided to never marry
or have children because any
“entanglement”
could
put

others at risk.

“I’ve
always
been
open

unconsciously
to
the

possibility of imprisonment,”
she said. “I don’t have a
husband, I don’t have children
whom they can hurt. I don’t
have private property that they

can rip off. So in this regard,
I’m the most independent, I’m
the most free person inside the
country.”

After the summons, Seng

chose to stay in the country
when she could have fled to
the U.S. or elsewhere. She said
this is what the government
wanted because if she left, she
would not be able to return to
Cambodia.

She called the summons an

act of insecurity.

“Why else are they coming

after a fragile or fragile-
looking 50-year-old woman
who walks around in heels?
Me?” Seng asked. “I don’t
have bodyguards. I don’t have
security. I only have a dog.”

While activists have been

targeted for criticizing the
government, Seng’s status as
a U.S. citizen makes her case
unique.

“I’m not unaware of the

power of U.S. citizenship and
I’m using that,” she said. “I will
use whatever tools I have.”

Seng said the repression of

activists and those critical of
the government is a strategy to
stifle dissent.

“They use physical tools,

they
use
the
weapons
of

violence,” Seng added. “We
have our own weapons, as
peacemakers.
Truth
is
its

own weapon. These are not
fluffy,
flowery
sentiments

— I really believe this. And
I really believe in the power
of solidarity among people

who love democracy, who love
freedom of expression.”

Typically, U.S. citizenship

might
have
made
the

government hesitate to charge
an
activist,
according
to

Ciorciari.

“It’s not surprising at all that

activists are getting hauled
into court by this government,”
Ciorciari said. “That is their
strategy, that is how they
defanged the opposition, is
to use carrots and sticks,
primarily
sticks
associated

with
the
judicial
system.

What is a bit surprising to me
is that Theary is Cambodian
American.
In
the
past,
I

would have not expected this
government
to
arrest
and

charge
somebody
who
has

American citizenship.”

But the country’s political

situation and relationship with
the U.S. has changed in the
last few years. The Cambodian
government, which long had a
tense relationship with the U.S.
government, decided in 2017 to
stop giving special treatment or
protection to people associated
with the U.S., Ciorciari said.
They kicked out the National
Democratic Institute Office in
Cambodia and shut down The
Cambodia Daily, an English-
language newspaper that was
largely run by Americans.

This
comes
as
China

asserts growing influence in
Cambodia, lending money and a
degree of political installation,
Ciorciari said. The Trump

administration’s
“strongman

tactics and downplaying of
the
human
rights
agenda”

may have also been a factor in
the government’s decision to
move against the NDI and The
Cambodia Daily, he said.

After Seng decided to stay

in the country and go to
court, she put her chances of
imprisonment at 90%. Now,
with increasing attention to her
case, which she thanks Genser
and other friends for, she puts
her chances of imprisonment
at 50%.

Public awareness is, in fact,

a key strategy for her case.
Genser has asked the U.S.
Ambassador to Cambodia to
attend Seng’s trial with her and
mobilize support from other
foreign embassies.

“These
trials
are
often

held in secret, despite the
requirements of international
law to be public and open to
the public,” he said. “By having
diplomats from the U.S. and
from other governments attend
and try to make their way
into the tribunal it becomes
much, much harder for the
government of Cambodia to
have the trial be closed …
(That) can be very, very helpful
to establishing the arbitrary
nature of the tension.”

Gesner
also
submitted

an urgent action appeal on
Monday to the United Nations
Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in
Cambodia and the UN Special

Rapporteur on the promotion
and protection of the right
to freedom of opinion and
expression.

Ciorciari
said
the
trials

of Seng and other dissidents
should be seen through a
political lens, instead of a
juridical one. He urged the U.S.
government to step in.

“If
the
United
States

government
and
others,

including
European

governments, including non-
state actors, if they don’t
come to the support of Theary
and
other
activists
who

are facing these trials, the
chances of the people on trial
for a fair outcome are greatly
diminished,” he said.

Ciorciari called Seng’s case

a watershed moment and an
opportunity for the U.S. to
prove its commitment to human
rights instead of engaging in a
“race to the bottom” on rule of
law and governance standards
with China.

“If the U.S. government is not

willing to stand up and voice
support in this type of case,
it’s hard to imagine preserving
any credibility in the region as
a defender of democracy and
human rights,” he said.

Seng has already met with

the U.S. embassy. Should she
be imprisoned, they agreed to
visit once a month and bring
her toiletries. She still wanted
to cut her hair just in case.

“I thought of the uncertainty

of being able to shampoo

regularly and having lice and
scabies and all that,” Seng said.
“So I’m prepared physically, but
I’m also prepared mentally.”

Her background encouraged

her to stay and fight, she said,
despite knowing the regime
well and what it’s capable of.
Seng said her friends have been
gunned down in broad daylight
by the Hun Sen government.

She is particularly worried

that the current conditions of
the government are similar
to the conditions prior to the
Khmer Rouge, which killed
both her parents.

“I cannot imagine as an

adult to have Khmer Rouge
part two,” Seng said. “ … All the
regional and global actors who
were responsible to whatever
degree for the rights of the
Khmer Rouge are present here.
I’m not overdramatizing this.
It’s just stating the urgency and
the seriousness of the matter
and
the
militarization
of

Cambodia. China has so many
military bases in Cambodia,
and it’s buying up land across
the country.”

“So everyone should pay

attention because Cambodia is
very fragile, it’s very durable
and under the influence of
China right now, that is a
serious concern,” she said.
“The conditions of pre-Khmer
Rouge are here.”

Daily
Investigative
Editor

Zayna Syed can be reached at
zasyed@michigandaily.com.

TRIAL
From Page 1

Manufacturers
would

typically not produce vaccines
until it’s approved, because
what if it’s not approved?
So what has happened is
that a great deal of vaccines
have already been produced
because the government has
underwritten the payment for
the doses. The other parallel
consequence of the funding
mechanism
is
that
these

trials are much larger than
typically conducted, which
is why we got the results
so quickly. The number of
people who are participating
relates
directly
in
terms

of how many failures are
going to occur. And that’s
how they figure out when to
do a preliminary analysis,
because they have to see a
certain number of cases.
The more people who are
in the trial, the quicker you
see the number of cases. So
everything has been done
to speed the process and
nothing has been done that
would affect assessment of
safety.

TMD: Can you tell me

a little bit about what the

timeline for rolling out the
vaccine will likely look like?

AM: Well, the timeline

for rolling out the vaccine
is really less of what I
am
involved
with.
The

committee will have a vote
on whether we think that the
vaccine should be approved
on the basis of safety and
efficacy. The FDA can either
listen to us or not listen, but
most of the time they do
listen. For the Pfizer vaccine,
we will have our meetings
about
that
on
December

10th. On December 17th, it
will be Moderna that will be
discussed. The dates of these
meetings are basically driven
by the manufacturers. This is
a public-private partnership
— things are driven by the
company submitting its data
to FDA and that’s how the
schedule of meetings has
been determined. We make
our recommendations, then
the FDA has to officially
approve. And this is an
emergency use authorization,
not regular licensure, which
will follow at a later time.
After
this,
the
Advisory

Committee on Immunization
Practices will meet virtually
and approve a policy for what
groups should be first in line.

And this is where Operation
Warp Speed comes in, but
that’s where things get to
be a little more vague in

terms of how things will be
handled.

TMD: What was different

about this vaccine process?
What has stayed the same
about this process?

AM: What is different

is the telescoping of the
various events. We’ve gone
through
usual
production

and laboratory testing of

vaccines. At the same time,
it very quickly went into
humans. Usually, you wait
for a period of time to do

phase one and two studies
and then to get into big trials.
But all this happened very
quickly.

A key thing to bear in mind

is that first is the emergency
use authorization and the
full licensure will require
six months of follow up.
However, the efficacy still
has to be demonstrated for

folks. There’s no difference
in
efficacy
requirements

in
the
emergency
use

authorization,
it
just
is

quicker. And people should
realize that there has been
no compromise in efficacy.
Efficacy is effectiveness for
observational studies, where
you see how the vaccines
work in the real world. Now,
what will happen afterward,
is that everyone will be
looking
at
effectiveness.

The University is going to
be involved here — we’ve
expanded what we usually
do with the flu to include the
COVID-19 vaccine. So we will
be part of a network looking
to
see
how
the
various

vaccines work in terms of
prevention of disease, and
also in terms of safety.

TMD: Why is a vaccine

so important to ending the
pandemic?

AM: Well, given the fact

that
we
don’t
have
any

immunity to this novel virus,
it
can
infect
everybody,

potentially.

And therefore, we need to

have the antibodies in the
population so that we can
reduce infection, illness and
spread.

TMD: What would you

say to anyone who might be
hesitant about any vaccine
that does get approved?

AM: This vaccine will

have been approved by the
standard mechanism. By the
time the vaccine becomes
available
to
the
general

population
it
will
have

standard,
non-emergency

approval. And the people
who would be first in line to
get it, with emergency-use
authorization, are at higher
risk of either developing
infection or getting more sick
... if they do get infected. So
they will probably talk about
the risk-benefit ratio. The
risk is we haven’t followed
the vaccine for as long as
we typically do. The benefit
is they don’t get COVID. As
with anything that you put
in your body, there’s always
some degree of risk. We want
it to be as low as possible, but
you always have to balance
the benefits with a small risk.

TMD:
Any
final

comments?

AM: The proceedings of

our deliberations are open
and they will be livestreamed
on YouTube.

Daily Staff Reporter Paige

Hodder can be reached at
phodder@umich.edu

VACCINE
From Page 1

There’s no difference in efficacy
requirements in the emergency

use authorization, it just is
quicker. And people should

realize that there has been no

compromise in efficacy.