Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Unwinding the mystery behind ‘Olive Allen,’ and her defense of Jason McLean

To the Strib’s credit, the mystery of “Who Really is Olive Allen?” didn’t linger very long.

Avid op-ed page readers may have caught the correction at the bottom of Thursday’s letters column. On­line it reads essentially the same:

Because of incorrect information provided by the author to the Star Tribune, this commentary was originally published under a pseudonym. It is the policy of the opinion pages to attribute commentaries and letters to the editor to authors’ real names, with exceptions possible in rare cases — when pre-approved by editors — to provide anonymity in extremely sensitive situations.

The commentary was a surprisingly lavish defense of prominent restaurateur Jason McLean, (the Loring Pasta Bar, Varsity Theater), currently embroiled in serious allegations of sexual abuse during his years with the Children’s Theater Company back in the ’80s. The piece was so praiseful of McLean’s various contributions to the Twin Cities arts and dining scene you might have thought it was a “placed commentary” whipped by some PR firm, if not written by McLean himself. And some did think that, with fair reason.

Kate-Madonna Hindes herself owns a small PR shop, “Girl meets Geek,” and also writes a blog with the same title. A rape survivor, she was infuriated by the commentary (and the Strib for running it) and set out to find the author, Olive Allen, “a writer in Minneapolis,” according to the Strib credit line.

The problem was that no such person turned up after hunts through Google and the usual social media venues. She says she and her friends even scanned census data looking for the now mysterious Ms. Allen. (The closest I could find was a young woman named “Olivia Allen,” whom I suspect was baffled by my Twitter query asking if she had written something for the Star Tribune.)

On her blog, Hindes wrote: “I want to believe the Star Tribune published the piece as a ploy for readership — nothing more. But now, I believe it’s the work of a lazy editorial staff who never bothered to fact-­check the named penned on the Jason McLean piece. Could it have been done to sway public opinion by a legal team or public relations before his trial begins? After multiple searches, I couldn’t find an Olive Allen who was a writer in Minneapolis — that’s when I knew, something strange was going on. I just didn’t realize the extent of it all.”

The commentary now features Hansen's byline.
The commentary now features Hansen’s byline.

As it turns out, Hindes was mostly right. Her suspicion that the “Olive” in question could be McLean’s daughter and Loring Pasta Bar employee, Olive McLean, didn’t pan out. But she was dead­-on about someone using a pseudonym and getting it past the Strib’s op-ed boffins.

My antenna began twitching when the Strib’s commentary editor, Doug Tice, didn’t return calls asking simply if he had vetted Olive Allen and was confident she was who she claimed she was. As it turns out, Tice and Scott Gillespie, editor of the editorial pages, were busy a big chunk of Wednesday trying to ferret out the reality of who wrote “In defense of Jason McLean’s artistic vision.”

Late Wednesday, Gillespie called with the tale. No, Olive Allen was not the author’s real name, he said. And, if you’re wondering: No, he was not pleased that someone had gamed his commentary system.

“The writer’s real name is Kay L. Hansen,” said Gillespie, and because of her use of a pseudonym, which the Strib allows for commenters but not for freelance pieces like an op­-ed column, changes were going to be made. 

Gillespie says the plan is to have revised standards for commentaries, clearly prohibiting the use of pseudonyms, in the paper and up on the website “sometime next week, I hope.”

Thursday morning, Hansen e­mailed me, (Gillespie having told her I was asking questions):

First of all, I don’t have a relationship, per se, with Jason Mclean. I’ve been a big fan of his work since the old Loring Bar and Café days and, as such, a loyal customer. In 20 years I’ve had a handful of conversations with him and always in the context of customer to proprietor. Regarding my nom de plume: I’ve used ‘Olive’ or ‘Olive Allen’ for years. ‘Olive’ is for my great aunt and ‘Allen’ is for my grandmother’s maiden name. It has nothing to do with anyone in the Mclean family. I’m not, as some have suggested, an agent of the McLeans, the Loring Pasta Bar or the Varsity Theater.

The reason I decided to invoke Olive for the Star Tribune is the same reason I decided to write the counterpoint in the first place: When the internet attacks, it goes for the jugular and I already knew this story was getting people worked up. I was merely trying to protect myself. After reading the initial story about the accusations against Jason McLean, I stepped back and watched as social media moved in and started picking at it. After awhile, it seemed to me that social media circles weren’t interested in justice so much as they were interested in total annihilation.

After my op­-ed was published, I watched one particular Facebook thread tear it, and Olive, to shreds. Each indignant comment grew the thread ­­ and it’s level of fury ­­ exponentially. Commenters on the thread all but accused Olive of being pro rape (for the record, I’m not) and set about trying to track her down.

I asked her about the interaction with the Strib when they contacted her about “Olive Allen.”

After the social media sleuths discovered Olive had no internet footprint, the Strib called me and asked me if Olive was a pseudonym. I said ‘yes.’ Though understanding and kind, they were not happy with me, told me it violated the paper’s policy and that they would mull over ideas on how to correct the situation. I then offered a written correction of my own:

‘A few days ago, moved by, what seemed to me, a rush to punitive action regarding the Jason Mclean issue, I sat down and penned a letter to the editor. The letter was meant to point out the positive and lasting impact of Mclean’s artistic vision and to caution against ‘cutting off our nose to spite our face.’

Emotions run high on issues of sexual misconduct and abuse. The court of public opinion, fueled by social media, can be brutal and, sometimes, scary. Which is why I chose to sign my letter using my nom de plume, “Olive Allen.”‘

The blowback was immediate. Indignant readers quickly deduced that ‘Olive Allen’ was a pen name and that put the Star Tribune on the spot. I apologize and I take full responsibility for the deception.

The most interesting takeaways from the episode are these:

  1. In an age of hyper­connectivity and instant reaction, anonymity isn’t a possibility, for all intents and purposes. If you infuriate enough people, or the right people, you will be found out. The moral being: You might as well start with full transparency and your real name and choose your subject matter and choice of words accordingly.

  2. Large public platforms like the Star Tribune receive literally hundreds (thousands?) of guest commentaries letters and reader comments every week. Vetting every one of them for accuracy is impossible. For the troll­-saturated world of commenters, the Strib and PiPress continue to permit pseudonyms, rationalizing the value of an unfiltered vox populi. That’s entirely debatable. But everything above commenting absolutely requires not only basic factual accuracy — within the accepted parameters of debate ­— but also common civility and the author’s real name. That is fundamental professional journalism, even when you’re publishing a guest commentary.

  3. As infuriated as some were by the praise for McLean in a media outlet with the Strib’s regional heft, the paper was well within good judgment running the piece. Op­-ed pages are not about massaging conventional wisdom. Lord knows there’s plenty of that. A vital op-ed page publishes commentary likely to provoke reaction, preferably of the intelligent variety.

  4. The Strib took the incident seriously and appears to have wasted little time tracking Ms. Hansen down and resolving the mystery. My guess is they had a long list of other matters they could have filled their day with. But they recognized a problem that required immediate correction. Good on them for that.

Comments (11)

  1. Submitted by Theo Kozel on 01/28/2016 - 12:59 pm.

    True enough, but…

    “Large public platforms like the Star Tribune receive literally hundreds (thousands?) of guest commentaries letters and reader comments every week. Vetting every one of them for accuracy is impossible”

    This seems to be a dodge- why not just vet the guest commentaries they decide to run with? That’s a much, much smaller pool.

  2. Submitted by Mark Gisleson on 01/28/2016 - 02:22 pm.

    Very odd

    When Amy Senser had her hit-and-run accident that killed Anousone Phanthavong, the owner of True Thai submitted a guest editorial to the Strib through their guest opinion link.

    Later, when there was a flap about her submission being ignored, the Strib reached out to the restaurant owner and, after ‘sanitizing’ the guest op-ed she had published on her blog, ran it in their newspaper. But before they did, they told her that they hardly ever checked for messages from that link. Essentially, you could only submit a guest op-ed to the Strib for publication if you had some kind of connection.

    So how did this get published? The Strib system we ran into was heavily firewalled and uninterested in guest editorials from random people.

    This was given to someone at the Strib. Someone who undoubtedly knew the author, and knew her real name. Tice’s insiderism has finally caught up to him. Their system doesn’t allow this kind of mistake. They got played and now they’re embarrassed. Expect it to become even more difficult for non-1%er Minnesotans to get guest editorials published.

  3. Submitted by Scott Gillespie on 01/28/2016 - 05:40 pm.

    For the record

    First, thank you to Brian for his accuracy in providing our side of this story.
    Re: Mr. Gisleson’s inaccurate comment
    Hard to know where to start. We never said the “link” was “hardly ever checked.” We constantly review the dozens of letters and commentaries submitted to us every day through our online link and emails sent to The commentary in question came late one week and, because it was sensitive and required extensive editing, was not considered for publication until the following week. (I believe what Mr. Gisleson calls “sanitizing” is what we call editing.)
    To suggest that someone must have some sort of mysterious “connection” to get a piece published by the Star Tribune opinion pages is ridiculous. We run several commentaries – and dozens of letters – from what Mr. Gisleson calls “random people” every week. I’m guessing a fair number of MinnPost readers and commenters fit that description and have been published on our pages. A few might also have been turned down for any of a number of reasons. It happens.
    Mr. Gisleson is correct in describing us as embarrassed by the “Olive Allen” matter. We wish it hadn’t happened. But we’re still going to publish commentaries from those “non-1%er” writers who have been contributing to our pages since before Sid was born.

    • Submitted by Jim Million on 01/29/2016 - 04:21 am.

      Thank You

      This is some of the most coherent writing I’ve read from the STrib.

    • Submitted by Joe Musich on 01/31/2016 - 07:37 pm.

      Interesting moment of .,.

      public reply. How is that some of the same names appear over and over again in the letters from the readers ? And furthermore that some of the commentary pieces are from the same writers on a repeat basis? Now might be the time to actually give a deeper explanation about how choices are made to print letters from readers and commentary pieces.

    • Submitted by Mark Gisleson on 02/03/2016 - 11:13 am.

      Glad to hear you check that link now

      We were clearly told (not by you) that the process did not work as you described it (drowning in submissions was the excuse). And the Olive Allen “matter” could not have happened under the rules you say are in place.

      You also do not mention why the STrib did not reach out to to the owner until after there was blow back from the community.

      You’ve laid off a lot of good people over the past decade. People understand how the STrib now works much better than you’re willing to acknowledge. And I think that’s part of the reason why STrib content increasingly fails to reflect the concerns of Minnesotans while parroting the agenda of big business.

      It’s hard to work in a place where truth and journalism are now secondary to not ruffling investors’ feathers. And yes, random guest editorials certainly appear in your pages. That gives more credibility to the stories that are planted. As was ours. We used community pressure to get you to reach out and you did. So I think I do understand your process and I do not believe that you were slow to respond to such a highly controversial story. The truth is your sports department didn’t want it run, and in such cases your op-ed people didn’t need to be told that, they already knew. So foot-dragging was your best excuse? Not a very good one.

  4. Submitted by Michael Friedman on 01/29/2016 - 11:31 am.


    My first op-ed in the Star Tribune was emailed to There was no insider connection.

    Often, an op-ed must be written and submitted with speed in order to remain timely, and I have made a submission without as much time for self-editing as I would have preferred. In those instances, I have found the editorial staff’s changes to be helpful and non-interfering.

  5. Submitted by Jim Boulay on 01/29/2016 - 11:36 am.

    John Wayne Gacy – Painter

    Yeah, sure he sexually assaulted teen boys, murdered them and buried them in his basement but boy could he paint a clown or two! She totally uses the argument that the archdiocese used to cover up for the pedophile priests and move them around to new unsuspecting victims. “Oh, he was so pious! How could anyone ever accuse HIM?”

  6. Submitted by Britter Ritter on 06/16/2019 - 02:37 pm.

    Having met Jason McLean in school, when he was in 11th grade, he was already a handsome, charming young man with an attractive personality. Within a few years, I, and other students, already knew there was a sexualized atmosphere at Children’s Theater Company and I chose to stay away from it. I had for some time found Donahue’s productions to be too dark and twisted for children.
    When McLean states that the teen-aged young women he is accused of initiated sexual contact with him, and given their number, one has to consider the possibility that they were pursuing him, perhaps competing for his attentions. While he should have resisted, this was an after-school program, not a school, he was not a classroom teacher, and it is Donahue who is responsible for creating the sexualized atmosphere there, the permissiveness, which was itself reflective of the times. Many teachers in many schools experimented with sexual relations with students. What went on at Children’s Theater Company is in no way comparable to the abuses by priests. While McLean may be guilty by law, the judgment against him is egregious, and the women who accused him are not deserving of profiting from doing so. No social good was accomplished by this witch hunt. It also seems clear that he was not able to get a fair trial or defense, so the judgment should be vacated.

Leave a Reply