Are publishers and reviewers ill-equipped to evaluate diverse books? Publisher Jason Low takes a look at recent book controversies and the results of the Diversity Baseline Survey.
At the beginning of 2016, Lee & Low Books released the
Diversity Baseline Survey (DBS), which surveyed publishing and review journal staffs to establish hard numbers that measured diversity in the publishing/review industry. Overall, the industry is 79 percent white*, 78 percent female*, 88 percent straight*, and 92 percent nondisabled*. After the DBS numbers were made public in January 2016, publishers announced many new initiatives. In February 2016, Simon & Schuster launched a new imprint, Salaam Reads, to focus on Muslim stories for children. In March 2016, Penguin partnered with We Need Diverse Books and introduced the
Roll of Thunder Hear My Cry Writing Contest for debut authors of color. In July 2016, Christopher Myers joined with Random House to launch the Make Me a World Imprint, which will focus on diversity. In September 2016, First Book and the National Education Association (NEA) partnered with Lee & Low Books to expand the publisher’s New Visions Award for debut middle grade and young adult authors of color. And review journals such as
School Library Journal,
Booklist,
Kirkus Reviews, and the
Horn Book have been making concerted efforts to diversify their reviewer pools. All of these separate initiatives are positive steps toward creating a more inclusive industry, but inevitably, some mistakes will be made along the way. Recently several titles have stirred up controversy:
A Fine Dessert, for illustrations that showed happy enslaved people;
A Birthday Cake for George Washington, for illustrations that also showed happy enslaved people (the book was eventually pulled from circulation by publisher);
When We Was Fierce, for using a fictional vernacular and for other problematic depictions that were offensive to the African American community (that book was withheld from release by the publisher); and
There Is a Tribe of Kids, for illustrations coupled with the word
tribe that created problematic associations of playing Indian that were offensive to Native and First Nations people. Almost all these titles earned significant praise from major reviewer journals before they encountered protests from academics and readers of color for being culturally inaccurate and/or racially offensive. By the time this article prints, more books may be challenged. Why does this keep happening? Well, two things are occurring at once. Publishers are still making books that showcase talented authors and illustrators, whose writing garners critical acclaim. This is their expertise. At the same time, both publishers and reviewers are inadvertently showing their blind spots. If you dedicate a number of years to a chosen field, you eventually become good at it. Malcolm Gladwell, in his book
Outliers, states that true mastery can be achieved with 10,000 hours of practice, which is the equivalent of 10 years. Since many people working in publishing have been at their jobs for more than a decade, we could safely consider them experts at many things: crafting beautiful books, crafting books that win awards, crafting books that garner starred reviews. Likewise, many reviewers have spent years training themselves to pick out exceptional books from a literary point of view. However, few people in publishing would consider themselves experts in diversity issues. I have been working in publishing for nineteen years, but I do not consider myself an authority. When it comes to diversity, most of us are still rookies. Not even people of color are automatic experts. Here is an example. Let’s say Lee & Low Books was going to publish a book with an Asian theme. I am of Asian descent, so it makes sense that I would have an authentic perspective on the themes in this book. And I do. I know firsthand what the minority experience is like in this country. There are some cultural issues on which I would be able to offer sensitive feedback. But if for argument's sake, the story delves deeply into Asian history of any kind, for that particular part of the story, I am not your guy. The editor of the book would have to seek out a person with expert credentials to vet this part for historical accuracy. The same kind of vetting is necessary for, but not limited to, parts of stories relating to vernacular, dialect, religion, locale, foods, sexual orientation, fashion/appearance, and politics. Over the years, editors and reviewers develop strong instincts about what makes a great story from literary and sales perspectives. But they are still in the early stages of developing these instincts when it comes to evaluating diverse content. At the very least, they must develop reliable instincts that notice red flags, alerting them to potential problems in a text or an illustration and the need to consult with someone more knowledgeable. They must be able to see their own blind spots and admit how much they don’t know. While this solution sounds logical and somewhat obvious, it is not easy. It is difficult for people who consider themselves experts in their fields to admit that they do not know stuff. There is also the lingering problem that if your staff lacks diversity, who are you going to ask for initial feedback? And do not even think of handing all the diverse books to the one person of color you have on staff to do sensitivity reads. One person cannot possibly be expected to speak for his or her entire cultural/racial/ethnic group, let alone for others outside that person’s experience. This is outside the scope of anyone’s realistic expertise. At Lee & Low, one attempt to increase people’s knowledge and sensitivity has been ongoing staff training. Last year, the majority of our staff underwent diversity training. Initially, when Allie Jane Bruce, children's librarian at Bank Street College of Education, suggested we invest in diversity training, I was not open to it. Lee & Low has been at the forefront of publishing diverse children’s books for more than two decades. We talk about diversity issues all the time. In my mind, we had paid our dues and had invested the time and money to acquire diversity training on the job. I thought we were already experts, but one thought kept coming back to me. Since I personally push myself to read and learn about racism and discrimination issues anyway, was there really such a thing as too much knowledge? So I changed my mind and we underwent the training. We listened and we learned. It was worth it. Today we reinforce our past training by conducting our own in-house diversity meetings every couple of months to stay sharp on the issues. Our staff is becoming more comfortable discussing what society deems too taboo to be brought up at the dinner table. The learning continues. Publishing is a super detail-oriented profession. We strive for near-perfection and collectively get bent out of shape when a typo makes it all the way to print without someone catching it. Imagine the horror, not to mention loss of revenue, when an incident of cultural appropriation, a whitewashed cover, or an unintended incident of overt racism makes it to print and readers call you on it. Now imagine that you are a review journal that has just given a star to the offending book. We do not have to imagine these things because they are happening right now. Such incidents make our industry lose credibility. The books that are challenged are questioned about their quality as works of literature and the impact they will have on young readers. But these books have also sparked questions in the minds of some readers about whether or not reviewers are in a position to judge accurately what constitutes good literature, especially when it comes to diverse titles. There are no shortcuts for the kind of vetting that needs to take place when publishing and reviewing the authenticity of diverse books. As with publishing in general, becoming an expert in diverse publishing and reviewing requires time and effort—perhaps even 10,000 hours. While many publishers know how to make great books and reviewers are adept at spotting good stories, diversity is still outside most of our industry’s wheelhouse. Given that the majority of publishing staff is 79 percent white and reviewer staff is 89 percent white, we must ask ourselves whether the current workforce can ever treat the subject matter of diverse books with the same amount of deep understanding, compassion, and respect that books with white protagonists receive. The data from the DBS revealed the lack of diversity in publishing and reviewing and acted as one of the catalysts that prompted some in the industry to start the long process for change. An increase in diverse staff at all levels will bring more cultural insight and make for better books. Hopefully, public controversies will not deter publishers from tackling diverse books, but will instead have the opposite effect of galvanizing people to rise to the challenge. Controversies should help us see our blind spots better, and inspire us to take the time to become experts in areas where we fall short. We have a long way to go before we achieve any kind of parity of representation. Diversity work is not easy, but worthwhile goals rarely are. On a macro level, publishing does not operate in a vacuum. Other industries, such as film, television, and theater struggle with their own sets of diversity gaps**. Society at large is at a crossroads when it comes to race and diversity. The issues are constantly and vehemently debated in the news and online. Our future relative to how we relate to one another as human beings is uncertain now that new leadership has been chosen, which will influence the trajectory of progress or retreat for years to come. When we conduct the Diversity Baseline Survey v.2.0, what will the numbers say? Will the current political dysfunction dictate our industry’s lack of diversity, or will we forge our own path? Whatever the survey results tell us, it will be clear where we stand, since the numbers do not lie. * The data is from the Diversity Baseline Survey (DBS), located at:
http://wp.me/p5BWS6-35T ** Lee & Low posted the Diversity Gap series on
blog.leeandlow.com, which shows statistics and interviews related to diversity problems in other industries.
Jason Low is the publisher and a co-owner of Lee & Low Books, the largest multicultural children’s book publisher in the United States. Founded in 1991, Lee & Low celebrated its 25th Anniversary in 2016. Lee & Low was named the 2014 Indie Publisher of the Year by Foreword Magazine. The Eric Carle Museum also selected Lee & Low as the recipient of its 2016 Angel Award for the company’s dedication to diverse books and to a new generation of artists and authors who offer children both mirrors and windows to the world.
Add Comment :-
Comment Policy:
Comment should not be empty !!!
SLJ Admin
[Comments for this post have been closed.]Posted : Nov 21, 2016 06:19
Gwen Tarbox
I want to begin by stating my solidarity with Dr. Debbie Reese and any other scholar who pushes back against persistent patterns of racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia in cultural artifacts for young people. I want to underscore the power of the *accrual* of such negative patterns, especially as a counter to the claim that any such incident that appears in a text cannot possibly harm a young reader. Children are more than capable of picking up on negative patterns, no matter how subtle, and in this society, the patterns are often not subtle at all. As one example, we just witnessed a World Series that went to 7 games, and the young fans who watched those games were forced to view a caricature (that's a nice way of putting it, because Chief Wahoo is an outrageous, leering, racist concoction) that inaccurately groups hundreds of indigenous societies into one term: "Indian," and, once that act of erasure is complete, goes on to depict what remains as a buffoon, creating a de facto double insult. And, of course, the Cleveland baseball team is just one of hundreds of institutions that have racist mascots, and racist mascots are just one tiny aspect of the inaccurate and hurtful messages that our culture puts forward regarding American Indians. Against this backdrop, the choices that authors make regarding the depiction of American Indians are always already tied up in dialogue with erasure, ridicule, and racism; therefore, the burden rests with authors to ask themselves what their choices reflect about their own motivations, and they also have to think about impact their choices might have on all types of young readers. For instance, an author might ask why it is that so many characters from American Indian nations appear fleetingly in children's and YA texts, only to be erased. This is a persistent pattern, and it seems logical that an author who sets out to write for young people would not only be aware of the prevalent patterns in this category of literature, but would also take the time to consider whether their text were perpetuating these patterns. Authors should also be able to recognize that some of these patterns are so widespread that they have become invisible to the dominant culture...and maybe even to themselves. And if a person points out that an author has, either intentionally or unintentionally, fallen into one of these patterns, then it is up to that author to LISTEN. In this case, Dr. Reese has spent her career reading, studying, and writing about the persistent patterns that emerge in the depiction of American Indians in children's literature. She has provided countless examples of the reactions of actual child readers who have been hurt by witnessing these patterns or seeing educators gloss over or ignore pejorative depictions of American Indians. She has also wisely pointed out that ALL children are harmed by these depictions because everyone deserves to become acquainted with depictions of this country's history that are as factually accurate as possible and that include the voices and lived experiences of more than just the dominant culture. In an ideal world, authors who learn that their work has raised questions among experienced scholars and librarians would LISTEN and would LEARN and would try harder next time. That's not a lot to ask, especially when one thinks about what is at stake: the right of all young people to see themselves reflected thoughtfully in texts, to see others reflected thoughtfully in texts, and to feel the relief that comes from knowing that there are adults in this world who have taken the time and the care to write informed, well-researched, and well-edited texts. Of course, those children might not express it in that way; instead, they are more likely to say, as one my own university students did last semester, after reading Jacqueline Woodson's Brown Girl Dreaming, "this was the first time that I ever saw a family like mine portrayed in a book for children. I love this book."Posted : Nov 21, 2016 12:13
Mike Jung
Did the conversation get stopped? When was that, exactly? At comment 175, maybe--OH WAIT THIS IS COMMENT 176, THE CONVERSATION HASN'T STOPPED AT ALL But you know what, there ARE people trying to stop this conversation. Michael certainly is, as are the various hey anonny nonnys supporting him. I mean, that IS what you lovely nameless and faceless people are now explicitly saying, you know. Stop the conversation. Stop talking. Stop talking about cultural appropriation. Stop talking about microaggressions. Stop talking about privilege. Stop talking about representation, identity, gender, sexuality, disability, and race. Stop talking about racism. Stop talking about diversity in publishing at all. But if we look at the marvelously cordial discourse we're indulging in here, we can see that the conversation isn't stopping, and one of the reasons for that is pretty obvious, at least to me. The conversation isn't stopping because when those who favor a return to silence say "stop talking about diversity in children's publishing," a lot of stellar human beings who understand the complexity of the effort to better our reality have a direct, concise, and deeply principled reply: No.Posted : Nov 21, 2016 10:58
Anony
Of course there's a race card. Andrew Patterson plays it big time when he wrote above, "Also YOU, AS A PRIVILEGED WHITE MALE, DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHAT IS AND IS NOT HARMFUL REP. YOU, AS A PRIVILEGED WHITE MALE, DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHAT IS RACISM. Not shouting there, but wanted to make sure you understood." We understand. Play the card, win the game, conversation over. Not that anyone of any group has a monopoly on determining racism. I'm sure that Prof. Ebony Elizabeth Thomas and Justice Clarence Thomas, both African-Americans, might read racism differently. There's nothing more to be said once the card is played except by a Michael Grant who has the guts to speak up, realizing that even if he now writes the second coming of SPEAK, LAST STOP ON MARKET STREET, and BUD, NOT BUDDY put together, he'll never win a literary award with a WNDB'er on the committee. He clearly doesn't care, which makes him a hero to many people. It's a year after the imbroglio over A FINE DESSERT, and the conversation still gets stopped with the race card. We haven't progressed a lick, or learned jack crap about how to treat people on the good guy side. And now, Trump is in the White House. Until we get our act together and learn the difference between a traffic ticket and termination with extreme prejudice, expect more of the same. Serves us right, probably.Posted : Nov 21, 2016 07:49
Casey Rogers
@Alex There is not such thing as the race card.Posted : Nov 20, 2016 12:11
Alex
A sequence of fairly random internet links brought me here. This discussion has amazed me. Michael Grant vs. the Order of the Eternal Sunshine. I feel like I've just visited a gathering of some cult (Mr. Grant excluded) impervious to logic, reality, and common sense. A somewhat more sophisticated version of 1984 with a shiny new book cover. Forgive me for going off on a tangent, but let me just say that when (and IF) you succeed in getting rid of/"reforming" every supposedly "insensitive white male" out there, it will eventually come down to you vs. some version of the Taliban -- and at that point I think I'll be rooting for the Taliban (with them, at least there is some hope 1000 years down the line). FWIW, that's coming from somebody who until recently has voted 100% Democrat (and twice for Obama), just so that y'all can put the race card back into the pocket.Posted : Nov 20, 2016 08:02
Beverly Slapin
All right, Michael, please go over there and sit down and listen up. There are many people—including Debbie Reese, Jason Low, Allie Jane Bruce, Anne Ursu, Chelsea Couillard-Smith, Ebony Elizabeth Thomas, Laura Jiménez, Lyn Miller-Lachmann, Nina Lindsay, Mike Jung, Sam Bloom, Sarah Park Dahlen, Stacy Whitman, and many, many others—trying to talk with you (directly or indirectly), and you need to take your hands away from your ears and stop screaming, “I can’t hear you!” And you need to stop bragging, bullying and victim blaming. Those are not proper behaviors, either. It’s very important to listen and respect everyone’s voices. When we’re convinced that you’re ready to be quiet, and pay attention, and show respect, you may rejoin our circle. There’s a lot of work to do, and we’ll be here for a very long time. We’re not going anywhere.Posted : Nov 20, 2016 06:34
Sabrina Carnesi
This conversation needs to get refocused. The primary issue that impacts determining more diverse books starts way before the author presents manuscript for publication. The solution to more diverse representation in children's literature can find it's root cause in the majority white female employed publishing houses, which gives reason to the rise in the fluidity of white female authors flooding the children bookshelves across the age ranges. This however has nothing to do with efforts at cultural diversity representation, unless you look at the shortage of guy protagonists in YA as part of the cultural subcategory. The chamber for diversity is not only empty, but many of the early books produced have now taken on classic status. Youth of color are in need of contemporary titles reflective of the world they live and know today. Using my own personal accountability checks, I can only say that up until this year, the Big 5 have moved two steps forward from go since Larrick's 1965 analysis, based on the following: 1. there is now no need for publishers to ask if there are diverse authors and illustrators available to write and illustrate books for diverse populations of youth. They know this and have maintained an overall disproportional production rate that averages out to approximately 10% annually over the past 50-years; 2. I liken the past 50 years of lethargic efforts to the placement of a bandaid on the "cultural lobotomy" that was systemically implemented during the years leading up to Larrick's mid-sixties analysis. 3. This practice can be observed in the way information is documented in the MARC records used for online public access cataloging. An example of this is Kathryn Erskine's "Seeing Red" which covers how a white family in 1972 handles their past family history involved with the murder of a black person in their town and how they are being pressured to leave their home in present day because they no longer see fairness in the segregation of races. Set in the southwestern corner of Virginia, the historic fight against school desegregation in Virginia is a central theme, but there is no mention of this in the the MARC records . There's only "race relations" in the MARC and "racial tensions" in the summary. "School desegregation" and / or "Virginia Desegregation" should be listed for access in the card catalog. This is similar to actions publishers chose to take in an effort to hide controversial issues covered in books prior to the Civil Rights Bill. 4. A final point is to focus on the component parts that make up the pipeline that feeds children's production. It's basically made up of the editorial staff which, in my novice position from the outside looking in, I divide into acquisitions and production: ---The acquisitions editors are the gate keepers and decide who gets the contract and who base decisions on their vision for market sale not the need for a balanced diverse world vision for our youth: ---then there's the content editor who determines what goes in each chapter and/or if any chunks of content has to be removed (this could change authentic representation of the story character interaction, language, settings, solutions, and place POC in typical after thought positions of powerlessness; and ---the line editors, who are the last to check for typos, punctuation, and grammar and can also cut paste and move parts around within a smaller field. Each phase of editing can tamper with the authentic delivery of diverse children's literature if people, with vested interests in the books' outcome and who share a familiarity with the lived experiences in the story, are not present throughout the book's project life. It is my sincere hope that the initiatives take hold and grow and the two imprints are given the proper and fair support needed to take root. I am thankful to Jason Low's unwavering focus. If we want to move forward, we of color must be the change agent. We should understand that we can use the strengths of each other to pull us forward. Lee & Low have become masters at multicultural publishing and staff training, for they are inclusive of multiple representation. There is no harm in using them as advisors and guides. There is also no harm in giving them the credit for what they are excellent at doing. AND, I believe, from deep down inside, that this is not the time for us to attack each other. . This is the time to be humble in our gifts and skills we possess in order that clarity might reign when we implement the strategy needed to release multiple stories to our children who are so in need of being exposed to. It is time to move out of our sylos, in order to work and dialogue together for greater understanding and respect. The only way to raise our profile is through us and by us. It is our responsibility to get the work done, and based on the exchange in this thread, it will take a variety of degrees of sacrifice, based on who does what. But as we all know, without sacrifice there is no gain in whatever endeavor we seek to accomplish.Posted : Nov 20, 2016 05:54
Sarah Hamburg
Anonymous: There has (perhaps predictably) been a recent spate of articles arguing that the lesson of the election is that the left needs to move away from "identity politics." In one of them, Mark Lilla writes, "Identity politics...is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections -- but can lose them." To which Adam Serwer replied, "What nonsense. White identity politics has won elections, just won an election, and will continue to win elections. The political power of whiteness is so immense that most people do not regard appeals to white identity as 'identity politics.' But it is." As many others have already said, the work Jason Low is doing in this article very much connects to the larger political landscape. Thanks again to him for the piece.Posted : Nov 20, 2016 01:01
Anonymous
Michael Grant had the temerity to challenge a basic assumption of Jason Low's, and look what happened. Note that it wasn't he who brought up GONE, it was Debbie Reese. Grant simply did what most writers know it is not in their best interest to do, which is to defend a non-identity-political point of view about their own work. His main political point is still not refuted, which is that we got spanked in the last election, and if we continue to center left-wing identity politics in the next four years, we're going to get spanked again, but worse. It is true, of course, that some people like spanking. Every smack is a reason to despise the person doing the smacking. But when critics can find an oppression narrative in GONE, they can probably find one in CHARLOTTE'S WEB, too. When all you have is a hammer, and you feel better when you swing it, everything looks like a nail.Posted : Nov 19, 2016 10:07
Debbie Reese
I finished my review of Michael Grant's GONE. I wrote it in a Dear Michael format and invited him to reply. He did. His reply is beneath my letter. I've also inserted my thoughts on his reply at the top of the letter. https://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2016/11/dear-michael-letter-to-michael-grant.htmlPosted : Nov 19, 2016 04:57
Laura Jimenez
I'm late to the discussion. I'm working my way through the comments. Specifically for Mr. Grant and his defenders - there are some resources to read, people to listen to and work you need to do. I wrote about some of this here. http://wp.me/p2UYFX-dSz. In addition, Dr. DiAngelo's piece in The Good Men Project will also be helpful for you STAT -- https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/white-fragility-why-its-so-hard-to-talk-to-white-people-about-racism-twlm/ For Mr. Low - thank you, as always. Laura JimenezPosted : Nov 18, 2016 04:47
Valerie Stein
I just want to thank Allie Jane Bruce for the link to pisab.org in this thread. Undoing Racism sounds like the best way forward, so I'm looking into what that will take, for me, to take my steps. Privileged white female here.Posted : Nov 18, 2016 04:47
Franki H
I just want to give a huge shout out to everyone (Debbie Reese and Allie Jane Bruce, in particular) challenging Michael Grant on his fauxgressive "ally theatre" performance. I'd also like to point out that Michael Grant has sucked up a tonne of emotional labour from those opposing him, especially Ms. Reese and Ms. Bruce. Educating and challenging aren't without emotional cost, especially when it's something you have to do as a regular part of your existence. Thank you, Jason Low, for a marvelous article and reminding me that it's not just about buying books that showcase diversity, it's also about supporting publishers and authors to even produce these works in the first place - and challenging those who get it wrong and should do better. Representation matters - thank you for doing the work.Posted : Nov 18, 2016 03:19
Regina Griffin
Dear Jason, Thank you so much for this piece and for all the work you do. Your essay makes me wonder what publishers are doing in terms of hiring practices now. Forever ago at Scholastic (late '80s, early '90s?) the HR department advised us that we HAD to open the net more widely during the hiring process. I don't know how long that initiative lasted, but it made a difference and was of great benefit to the company. (I could name some terrific editors who joined us and the field then.) The firm also collaborated with other media companies (ad agencies, etc.) on a paid internship program to broaden their work force. That was another era, but it did seem that a more organized, defined effort paid back, not only in creativity and quality of books, but also to the bottom line, which we know speaks to the corporations. In this era of smaller staffs, is anyone taking the time to do this? It's only one tiny step, but I remember Walter Dean Myers saying that initiatives such as these, or others for writers, helped open doors, and when they are dropped, we lose the momentum, and fall back, which was one of the reasons he wrote that NYT piece before he died.Posted : Nov 18, 2016 12:44
Debra Johnson
Basically, Mr. Grant said the white Trump vote is a response to multiculturalism. That if people of color would just sit down and be quiet this would not have happened. He is right. The Trump vote was a vote in favor of white privilege and white supremacy. The problem lies not in his analysis, but in the proposition that the return of marginalized groups to quiet obscurity is a cure for racism. His prescription requires that marginalized groups sacrifice themselves to make white people feel safe. This is victim blaming of the first order. Mr. Grant might be better served by tackling the racism that fueled the Trump vote, rather than screaming we must go back. Which, by the way, was exactly what Donald Trump promised his supporters. But we have entered a new phase in the fight for diversity. And building a respectful body of diverse children's literature is paramount. If we can get diverse stories into the hands of children, stories that help children empathize with those who do not look like them, or worship like them, or whose culture is different; we can begin a process of inclusion. We can off-set the racism and "Othering" that they will encounter in classrooms, churches, and their segregated neighborhoods. Now is not the time to step down, back away, or be quiet. This fight is too important. This is a fight for the hearts and minds of the next generation. To hush now, is to let bullies win and to fail all children. For those on the front lines, many of whom are present on this thread and too numerous to mention by name, I am eternally grateful. As a mother, a grandmother, a reader, writer and a woman of color: thank you all.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 11:28
Kate Elliott
Jason, thank you for this reasonable and measured piece, which I would say comes in a timely manner except all the time is the right time to speak out about diversity issues. Thanks also for the continued work of Lee & Low. That Jason's very mild and restrained essay was met with immediate pushback is a measure of how much work there is to do, and how important it is to listen to and respect the voices of the marginalized speaking about their own experiences and expertise.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 11:04
Amber
Michael Grant, the fact that in your first comment alone you tried to tear down what many people, including Jason Low and Debbie Reese care about says a LOT. Debbie didn't display lunacy. You tore Debbie down repeatedly. That isn't okay. She made no false accusations against you and it's really awful you kept telling HER to point out your problematic issue to you. Humans are capable of caring about multiple things at the same time. I know this is a really hard concept for some people, but I promise you, it can be done. People can be upset about cultural appropriation and negative representation AND be upset about how the election happened. The fight can be BOTH of these things. You know why? They're not mutually exclusive. When you have a president who is openly racist and does not denounce the racism, you can clearly see how it's important books show GOOD representation of different cultures. If you don't clearly see this, then I have nothing more to say on that front. "Trivializing X makes cases of genuine X more difficult to confront." No. It doesn't. It doesn't for those affected. It's hard for you as a CISHET White Male to understand the layers of racism, sexism and homophobia, but it's not for those that deal with these issues. It's not hard for those that deal with these problems in their day lives. "Nor is treating a picture of a smiling slave as some sort of crime against humanity." The nerve of you. You, as a white male, do not get to say how a Person of Color gets to think about certain things. Especially not what hurts them. People are not taking "cheap shots" and gloating over "the destruction of their books". It's not fun for POCs and other marginalized people to have to see issues with books. I assure you, if marginalized people never saw another issue in a book with people like them, they would be satisfied. It's not fun to call out books because you, being the prime example you are, and others like you simply shoot people down. It's not okay that Debbie mentions a native american character to you and you assume she's lying. What kind of entitled person are you? Why would anyone have to lie about your books to get their point across? You do not get a free pass at "diversity" for simply including characters in a book. You definitely don't get a free pass for criticism for having them. "And as we’ve just seen, all it takes for Ms. Reese to start accusing and slandering is for me to knock off a character who happens to be Native American. I threw the reference to the Chumash in as an effort to at least acknowledge that there are still Native Americans in SoCal. That was it. It’s a throwaway character we see for three pages out of a 1500 page series." If THIS is how you write your "diverse characters" as throwaway characters, as characters to at least "acknowledge" their existence, then THAT is why you are part of the problem. You want cookies for including a Native American, it doesn't matter if their portrayal hurt people even if YOU don't think it should have been hurtful. You included a Native American character, you did your job. It doesn't work like that. Debbie IS helping the cause. Just because you cannot see it, it doesn't mean she's not helping. She's helped countless people, she's surely helped me see issues in books that I may have not seen as clearly before. She's helped countless other people and the way you've been putting her down in the comments this entire time is really disgusting and shows that you aren't a feminist. If you were, you wouldn't be trying to knock her down so much because she's saying something you (the white guy in power) don't like. How dare you shut down those that are criticizing your books by assuming they're reading them wrong. People are ALLOWED to not like your books. Just because you write a character with autism or you wrote POC character, it doesn't mean people HAVE to like the book. It doesn't mean people have to cosign the book and get behind it. Especially not if they were HURT or OFFENDED by it, which you don't care about. You really seem to not care if people were hurt by your books because you included diversity and, well, they must have something wrong with them. So clearly Debbie and I must have something wrong with us to not like you erasing the only Native American characters in Gone. It must be our bad, right? No. You cannot take criticism and I suspect you haven't had to deal with it much in your life. What people want is more proper representation of themselves, it's not wrong. It's not wrong to want to be positively represented. It's not wrong to be upset when your race or religion, when portrayed in few books, is shown in a negative light. I don't care if it makes people want to write those characters less. They need to go confront themselves and ask themselves why they don't want to put forth the effort into doing so. I don't care if writers are scared about including characters from a different background. They should be more concerned with portraying that character as best they can. They should be more concerned with their READERS than their writer feelings. If they're writing for someone that isn't themselves, anyway. I'm not even going to touch the money card you played several times here because it was just so incredibly tacky of you. Actually, I am, later in my comment. You want to feel good because you have money? You want people to jump for you because you're privileged enough to wave money in front of their faces You want to brag about your privilege and money and how great you are, we get it. There was no need for you to talk that way to Debbie with money. There was no need for you to talk about how you and other writers (I'm sure white) could write out six figure checks for We Need Diverse Books. There was NO reason for you to tear them down as well or even bring them up in this conversation. It's really none of your business how much money WNDB brings in and it's certainly not your concern that it dropped. How dare you wonder why and then think it must be the creators. We can't all write six figure checks. WNDB is a great organization that is helping the YA community as well as teens. Just because all you see is negativity (I don't blame you, you seem to be a very on the edge person) doesn't mean they don't help. And just because you see Anne as a bully it doesn't mean she is. Yes, you ARE a part of the problem. Why is it so hard for you to own up to ANYTHING on this thread? Why do you have to keep pushing People of Color down to feel like a good person? You want a participation trophy which I'm sure you'd complain about "all the kids" getting for being a decent human being and showing a world that isn't CISHET White. Guess what? You do not get a participation trophy. You do not get kudos or applause. You especially don't get them when your books have hurt or offended people. You can't say "white people really don't get what racism is" and then before say how drawing a smiling slave isn't a crime against humanity or doing a bad thing without meaning to. It doesn't work that way. You do not get to decide what racism is. You don't get to cherry-pick what People of Color can be offended about. They can be offended by smiling slaves AND being called a slur AND a multitude of other things. "Not quite sure why I wore myself out attacking Trump publicly while about 90% of YA writers stayed silent." Were these white authors? Because I have seen countless YA authors and writers speaking up this entire time. You need to expand your circle and maybe think about why 'you' have to be the only one to have "attacked Trump publicly" as if you're some type of White Savior when POCs have been doing this work for a while. Maybe you should look into what other YA Writers and just people in the community (pubs, bloggers, editors) are doing regarding the election. It could be eye-opening for you because you are not seeing very far. Congratulations because while you donate buckets of money to this organization and that organization, you are the problem because you think you're saving everyone when really, you're not. It's nice to donate money, it's really generous, but in the end, actions and words speak louder. It's easy to donate money and then portray a character that would benefit from the organization you donated to, poorly. And you do not care.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 10:57
Andrea Cremer
Thank you, Jason, for this thoughtful essay and for the training resources. One of the trends that's troubled me deeply in the wake of the election is the claim by Trump supporters that they aren't racist despite glaringly racist behavior. Case in point: the W. VA mayor who made vile comments about Michelle Obama. It's clear that a significant percentage of the population believes that there is a distinction, both in definition and moral implication, between 'real' racism and the racist language, ideologies, and behaviors they've somehow normalized. This pervasive attitude demonstrates how dangerous it is to neglect microaggressions, appropriations, and all manner of things people can deem small, not a big deal, a joke, and thereby legitimize their racist behavior and defend it, automatically claiming themselves victims of 'political correctness' when called out. But it's irresponsible and dangerous to separate or create a hierarchy of racist behavior - to do so assumes that each act occurs in isolation. Any 'small' incidents of racism are the seeds that grow into the atrocities Mr. Grant wants to receive our exclusive attention. I believe especially in children's literature careful attention to these issues is imperative. Books may be the only counter a child has to a home or community where 'small' racisms are the norm. Diverse stories may be the only window to a better society. To discount the value of each intervention a book can make is to neglect the worth of dismantling racism at its roots.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 10:56
Cee Arr
Diversity is not the dirty word some people seem to think it is. Diversity is a way for people who have been ignored and marginalised - sometimes vilified - for too long, to be seen, to be heard. It's about making people equal. And that's not dirty. That's beautiful. That starts at the grass roots. Media, and yes I include literature in that, shapes the way we perceive the world from the time we're kids. If we only ever see one view of the world - how do we know what else there is? And unless we learn to see the world from the perspective of others - to listen to *why* people object to certain things, then that's all we're going to get. Look, we're going to make mistakes - we're all human. It's the apologising and learning from those mistakes that count. And to Michael Grant, I say this: Po callaf y dyn, anamlaf ei eiriau. The wiser the man, the fewer his words. Listen to the people you are shouting down. Take in what they're saying. Stop silencing people who have been silenced for too long. You do nothing for diversity by ignoring the people you are supposed to be including.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 10:51
Didi Chanoch
I would just like to register my support of Jason, Debbie, and so many others saying important things in this thread.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 10:19
Anon
Jews: they almost singlehandedly invent the Left, but as Jews never get any street cred somehow. That's the most salient thing in this comment thread. But maybe people aren't interested in that old story. Well, that, and for language buffs, the curious intonation "It's not okay to go 'off' on ..." which after the umpteenth iteration, has the whiff of both catechism and a junior high counselor's office somehow. But then people really into kids' books, may be those lucky "kids at heart" type people.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 10:19
Leigh Bardugo
When so many PoC and marginalized voices are saying that better representation and a move away from cultural appropriation are important to them, it isn't our job to step in and claim, "THE THINGS YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT AREN'T IMPORTANT." Educating publishing professionals on these issues can only be a boon to authors. People aren't going to stop doing their jobs because of the way this election went, and Jason's post advocates learning to do our jobs better. Not sure why that required putting him or WNDB on blast.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 10:06
Saffyre F
First of all, I want to say that I appreciate Mr. Low for writing this article. In my efforts to bring talk about diverse books into the academy, I often use the resources Lee & Low provides on its websites. I also want to briefly respond to Mr Grant by echoing what Justina said. Microaggressions are an ever-present issue for all marginalized people, and including them in books is dangerous because it teaches the privileged that is an ok way to act. Also, criticism is an important part of the creative process. By publishing a book, you are automatically opening yourself up to criticism. Learn from it so you can do better next time. There is no point in acting like people are attacking you for pointing out problems in your work. It's our duty as readers to choose books with diversity and support diverse authors and publishers. It is also our duty to critique problematic booksPosted : Nov 17, 2016 10:03
Simon Curtis
Having a conversation about what we can do within our industry to better the minds and enrich the lives of an entire generation in the face of tyranny does not preclude our ability to stand up and fight that tyranny as well. One of the biggest topics of conversation in the world of books right now has been started by non-white members of this industry; "Let's make sure we represent a wider array of stories, but more importantly, let's make sure we represent them well." These aren't mutually exclusive conversations, and if we *really* want to better our world, then we are all going to have to figure out how to have several conversations like this, all at once, no matter how uncomfortable they may feel at times.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 10:02
Autumn
I enjoyed this article -- I think Jason Low makes excellent points about the publishing industry's blind spots without finger-pointing and name-calling. Books create empathy. TV shows act as surrogate friends. The more diverse/ books we can get into children' hands, the less likely we are to have kids who grow up voting for a racist, sexist, ableist candidate. And if those books are made into TV series and movies? People who don't live in diverse areas of countries will have diversity in their living rooms anyway. There's room for protesting now and laying the groundwork so future protests will be about something besides racist candidates and policies.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 10:00
Jonathan Bell
The strength of a group comes from its diversity, not its specialization. Rather than train those in the system to "Think Diverse", why can they not move the money spent on training to actually including other worldviews at the table, and listen to what they have to say? Keep your decades of knowing where the punctuation goes, but recognize that diversity training will not solve the problem.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 09:56
Jennifer Laughran
This article was thoughtful and great. Much appreciated, Jason. Off to quadruple my donation to We Need Diverse Books' internship program. Thanks for the impetus.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 09:56
Julie Artz
Thank you Jason, and Debbie, and Justina, and Ellen, and everyone who has taken time to raise awareness on the importance of diversity and sensitive representation in our books. I have learned so much from listening to what you have to say and appreciate that you continue to speak up, despite being continually attacked by the very people who need to hear your message most urgently.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 09:50
Tibby Wroten
To start with I want to thank Jason Low both for the above article and his years of hard work in the kidlit publishing industry. As a librarian I appreciate the books Lee & Low publishes. I agree with his points and found a lot of food for thought, including and especially the formal diversity training. And thank you Allie Jane Bruce for giving out the name and link to the organization you used. I will be taking that to my diversity committee at school to push for that. We desperately need it. To jump into the fray of Michael Grant, as others have said I also understand your anger over the election and what is going on in our country. I also understand your need to do something about the person who will be president soon and the people he’s brought out of the shadows. But ultimately you derailed the conversation here. It was not okay to go off on the people who jumped into point out flaws in your work, nor was it okay to go off on the people who have jumped in to speak up for the PoCs/Natives, like Debbie Reese. You are certainly welcome to disagree with any and all of them, but please do so offline, in your own head or with friends, and after taking to heart what they have said. You do not need to prove in a thread of comments on a tangentially related article that you are trying to get more diverse books out into the world or that you are an ally. If you know you are, let that be enough. That can be really difficult, but it’s something white people need to learn to do. Part of the point of the article was that we need more diverse voices in the publishing industry so that they can identify those throw away moments in books that might seem trivial to white people, but feed into the seemingly endless stream of microaggressions. I also know that doesn't seem like enough in such dire times, but it is something and changing the hearts and minds of our youngest is ultimately no small action. Jason Low is talking about expanding the field and making everything produced higher quality. From at least some of your comments here I believe that is a cause you can get behind.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 09:17
Monica
Correct me if I'm wrong but what this sounds like, Mr. Grant, is that your position is that representation of characters in fiction either it doesn't affect racism, or it's a lesser battle, because it's not as egregious a Halloween costume and intent matters. Stories, however, have power whether they're fictional or not. Stories are what have been used to dehumanize entire populations of people to justify harm against them. It intentionally happened in the 19th century, both intentionally and unintentionally in the 20th, and now here we are. White people didn't think racism was as big of a deal any long, and now we recognize that it has been there all along--and what's more? We're the only ones who are surprised by this. The biases we grow up with, either on a conscious or subconscious level, are reflected in the works we write. We may never intend to infuse them into the work via authorial intent, but the problem is that once a book leaves our computer authorial intent is regulated to what scholars think of our words. We write to establish an emotional connection to the reader, but if we get an identity wrong? That causes actual harm to people, because they feel those biases manifest through our stories--even ones that have potential, ones they may have enjoyed. When someone affected reaches out to you, they're doing so because they've read 1,000 other descriptions that have done the same thing. Those internalized biases are real, regardless of our intellect and talent in the craft, and when someone speaks up it's our job to listen. To not regulate those comments to the internet, or to pass them off as ridiculous. Right now, internet channels are giving underrepresented and marginalized peoples a voice they have never had. When they reach out, they aren't doing so to hurt people. They're saying: "We are hurt. Please help us." How you choose to respond to that is up to you, of course, but being defensive only makes the situation worse. I'm surprised you don't consider the genuine feedback you're getting as a gift. It hurts, yes, but as writers don't we always seek to improve our craft? And, when the lessons we learn are hard to hear--doesn't that make the end result that much better? If nothing else I've said is ringing with you, please consider this: when times get dark, as it appears they will be, many people look to books for hope. That's why representation matters. One book can be a balm to someone who's hurting, but it can also show someone who's confused or questioning supremacist propaganda that everyone deserves equal human rights because, through the lens of our art, they see that we're all human.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 09:17
Addie
Yo, Michael Grant, learn when to take a fecking seat. No one is going to kiss your hands because you feel that you have succeeded in writing diversity into your books. In fact, it seems several people here--in particular those who have read your books, are people of color, and are women--have come out and said they didn't feel your treatment of women/girls and POC in your writing was all that great. Take a moment to sit down and consider the criticism they're handing you. It isn't empty. It isn't petty. It's genuine feedback from people who matter, the very same people you are trying to include in your work. We can pretty much always do better. Name-calling won't get you anywhere here.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 08:33
Debbie Reese
This conversation has been hard to follow because of the way the comments thread. Because the convo turned into a he said/she said by/about Michael and me (Debbie Reese), a summary might help those who are trying to figure this out: Nov 9, 8:29 PM -- Michael dismissed Jason's article, saying things like "prattling on about cultural appropriation" and "sieving for obscure examples of cultural appropriation." Nov 13, 8:40 PM -- I thanked Jason for the article and said this to Michael: "That book where you erase Native people right away? That’s messed up. Given other things you’ve said, I think you’re part of the problem. I know you think you’re Mr. Sensitivity, but, nope. Tell yourself that, all you want. I disagree." Nov 15, 12:31 -- In a reply to Jason, Michael said "Downstream here I have Debbie Reese ranting about some book she imagines I wrote. I have literally no idea what she’s talking about, I don’t recall writing about Native Americans, but I’ve written 150ish books, so who knows? But without context, or explanation, or justification, Ms. Reese says: “That book where you erase Native people right away? That’s messed up. Given other things you’ve said, I think you’re part of the problem. I know you think you’re Mr. Sensitivity, but, nope. Tell yourself that, all you want. I disagree.” So, because of some imaginary infraction that has evidently gone unnoticed by any of the millions of actual kids and librarians etc… who’ve read my books over the course of 27 years, I’m “part of the problem.” Nov 15, 12:39 PM -- Michael asked me to substantiate what I said, offering to donate $1000 to the charity of my choice if I could provide him with proof of having erased a Native character. He said "WTF are you talking about, lady" and "maybe you're nuts." He then dared me to prove what I'd said. Nov 16, 8:30 AM -- I replied to Michael, saying "You don’t remember, Michael Grant… That’s telling. That nobody has noted it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. That’s just an indicator of the depth of ignorance out there about how writers like you create Native characters for your books. I’m looking at it right now. And I’m not going to tell you what it is. Own it. Look for it yourself." Nov 16, 8:43 AM -- I wrote: "For those who haven’t seen Michael Grant’s proclamations on diversity, see his blog post here: https://medium.com/@MichaelGrantBks/on-diversity-fa3cefb0e0a7#.n29p22u11 He started with this: “Let me put this right up front: there is no YA or middle grade author of any gender, or of any race, who has put more diversity into more books than me. Period.” And then offers to give money to a favorite charity if you can prove there’s someone who has done more. And then, he lists all the books where he has diverse characters. But none where there’s a main character who is Native. That he does, in fact, have one in a book and can’t remember tells me a lot. Nov 16, 11:24 AM -- Michael replied: "You are a McCarthyite bully, Ms. Reese. I rest my case. Totally unsupported accusations about some book you say you won’t name. Do you have a list of communists right there in your hand, Ms. Reese? Can you wave it for the cameras? I offer 1000 dollars to any charity you care to name – would buy quite a few books for some struggling reservation school library – but you won’t even attempt to collect the money because. . . Because, Ms. Reese, you are a liar, a fraud, and a bully." [Note: his reply was subsequently removed by the moderators. I still have a window open that has that comment.] Nov 16, 11:28 AM -- Michael said "Name the book, Ms. Reese. Name the book." Nov 16, 12:16 PM -- I said "Michael, I could suggest you go read your books and find it, but even when you find it, you’ll argue with me about what you wrote and why it is a good thing. Everyone else, The book I’m referring to is GONE. On page 23, Grant introduces Lana. She’s in a truck with her grandfather (Grandpa Luke), who is Chumash, an alcoholic with dark brown skin. He is suddenly gone, as are other adults. That’s the premise for the book. Adults are suddenly gone. So, Grandpa Luke disappears–or is gone–from the story. Chumash never appears again in the book. The only thing that appears again, specific to Grandpa Luke is a coyote and what he taught her about coyotes." Nov 16, 12:30 PM -- Michael said "Oh. My. God. You really are an. . . no, let’s not. Let’s pretend we’re talking to a rational human being.. Here’s where you started: “That book where you erase Native people right away? That’s messed up. Given other things you’ve said, I think you’re part of the problem. I know you think you’re Mr. Sensitivity, but, nope. Tell yourself that, all you want. I disagree.” Erased. That’s the accusation. Erasure of Native people. And after repeatedly refusing to tell me what book you’re talking about, you cite a book where every single adult is disappeared. Your ‘erasing” of native Americans also erased African-Americans, Polish-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Norwegian-Americans, French-Americans, Italian-Americans. . . A thousand people or so. And then a bunch more people die, and I “erase” them, too. See, the premise of the book is that everyone over the age of 14 disappears. Was that hard for you to follow? Do you honestly intend to defend the idea that a minor adult character in an opening scene where every adult character goes away, is somehow a racist attack on Native Americans ? You know, in my most recent book I “erase” millions! I want all the writers lurking out there to take a good, long look at this. This is ALL it takes to have Ms. Reese single you out and attack your work. This is what a slander by Ms. Reese is worth. Nov 16, 12:43 PM -- I said "Your response, Michael Grant, shows your lack of serious engagement with anyone who has written critically about, in this specific case, Native characters and how they are used by writers." Nov 16, 1:15 -- In a response to Karen Jensen's comment that what he'd done with the Native character was a micro level misrepresentation, Michael said "No, I’m sorry, but that is simply incorrect. Trivializing X makes cases of genuine X more difficult to confront. It’s the Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome. If every time someone leaves the stove on for an extra minute you call the fire department, pretty soon they stop showing up. If very time I discover a mole I start freaking about cancer, pretty soon no one listens. And as we’ve just seen, all it takes for Ms. Reese to start accusing and slandering is for me to knock off a character who happens to be Native American. I threw the reference to the Chumash in as an effort to at least acknowledge that there are still Native Americans in SoCal. That was it. It’s a throwaway character we see for three pages out of a 1500 page series. Now, please ask yourself this: as a result of this approach by Ms. Reese et al, are writers, more or less likely to want to write Native American characters? The answer is obvious: less. And many of the writers who are lurking here and (wisely) staying out of this are thinking exactly the same thing: OMG, is that seriously all it takes to get Ms. Reese to impugn us and attack our decency? The stated mission of WNDB: “OUR MISSION – Putting more books featuring diverse characters into the hands of all children. Do you think Ms. Reese is helping that cause? I know she thinks she is. But as a practical matter, no, she’s convincing writers to avoid Native characters at all cost. That – in addition to the minor but real political effects – is why I’m calling her out. She is practicing McCarthyite tactics, attacking her own allies, hurting her own cause, while making herself important in the process. Nov 16, 1:33 PM -- I said "Like I said, you’re using Native characters as decoration. To “knock off.” As a “throw away character.” That “we see for three pages.” Nov 16, 2:00 -- Michael said "Yes, Ms. Reese, do you not understand how books work? We create many, many characters who are ‘throw-aways,’ there for a purpose and soon disposed of. This one happened to be Native American, but I assure you, I dispose of secondary characters with alarming regularity. You wouldn’t believe how many white, black, Asian, straight, gay, Christian, atheist, Jewish characters I’ve killed off. So, let’s parse this shall we? Had I not said Grandpa Luke was part Chumash you’d have had no problem. But because I mentioned he was Chumash, you’re upset. And you want more Native American characters in books. Right? You know how many adult characters make on-camera appearances in the first 5 books of the GONE series? Two. One is Native American. One is not. Both are. . . erased. You owe me an apology, Ms. Reese, you have slandered me, you’ve doubled down on the slander, you’re refused even to specify charges, and when faced with facts you simply ignore facts and repeat lies. Right now (Nov 17, 2016, 8:53 AM) I am working on a review of GONE. I read it last year and should have done the review them. When it is done, I'll be back with a link.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 07:54
Anonymous
"Mr Grant says that we all have the same goal: of fighting racism. So why is he quick to antagonise Indigenous and People Of Color for trying to fight against microaggressions that contribute to racism?" I'd suggest he was defending himself against scurrilous accusations from neo-McCarthyites. Being a person of color doesn't give anyone license to hurl baseless charges at another human being. Everyone is required to present evidence of their charges no matter the circumstances of their birth.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 04:00
Tez Miller
It's not up to us privileged people to call ourselves "allies". That is literally not ours to decide. We can show donation receipts and "proof" of our activism, but it is still not our place to call ourselves "allies". That's up to the marginalised people we're trying to help to decide. "Performative allyship" is linked with "fake allyship". The "ally" in question will roll out their "proof", yet won't listen, research, learn, reflect on their own behaviour, or believe when marginalised people say the words and actions are harmful. The "ally" will demand that people explain to them what they're doing wrong ("Prove it!"). Dismantling racism needs to happen on ALL levels. Not just the big stuff like elections and donations. But in our everyday interactions, in our thoughts, in our opinions. In our reading, writing, and communication. If you really are an "ally", you won't defend your actions or attack others for calling you out on your problematic behaviour. (SLJ has deleted at least two comments here for attacks.) If you're really an "ally", you won't claim you're being "victimised"/"libelled" by the people you're supposedly trying to help. Are you really an "ally", or are you really just trying to collect "ally cookies" as "proof" of your "allyship"? Mr Grant says that we all have the same goal: of fighting racism. So why is he quick to antagonise Indigenous and People Of Color for trying to fight against microaggressions that contribute to racism?Posted : Nov 17, 2016 11:59
Vansetters
Realize that for all of this, there will one day be a reckoning. There are screenshots galore. For Andrew Smith, Tommy Wallach (and his mom), E Lockhart, Keira Drake, Michelle Madow, Michael Grant, eE Charlton-Trujillo, Lane Smith, JK Rowling (?), John Green (again ?), etc. Diversity in publishing is a noble goal. Destroying authors (who are extremely liberal and very good people) is not and should stop.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 07:11
Guadalupe Garcia McCall
I would first like to thank Jason for this very important post, which sparked this heated discussion because it shed some light on exactly how much work still needs to be done to keep this boat from sinking. I would say Lee and Low, at this point, is more than throwing out lifeboats. Lee a Low is a beacon, a safe zone, welcoming writers of colors and diverse voices home. I personally commend them for not sitting on their laurels, but continuing to train themselves, seek guidance, commit to learning, and staying current and true to their cause. I for one am thankful for this post and all that it makes me think and reevaluate as I tread these dark political waters on this journey as a writer of color.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 07:05
Kara Stewart
I am a Native person and as yet unpublished author who also greatly appreciates Debbie's work. We very much need her thoughts and reviews to be seen by authors, agents and editors to increase accurate representation of Natives. And a big yes to Cynthia's comments, also! Spot on.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 06:59
Anon
Give it up, Michael Grant. Decadence only goes one direction, before a full stop; you are powerless before it.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 04:47
Cynthia Leitich Smith
I’m grateful to everyone who has steadily invested in conversations about accuracy, authenticity, and diversity of representation both within the industry and on the page. Lee & Low deserves a great deal of credit for largely taking point within publishing, and speaking as a Muscogee author, I especially appreciate Debbie’s ongoing analysis of children’s-YA books by and about Native/First Nations peoples. Jason speaks to diversity and sensibility gaps in the expertise of publishers and gatekeepers. I would like to build on what he says by pointing out that the expertise itself is grounded in mainstream western literary traditions, their idiosyncratic standards and point of view. It’s not only that most reviewers and publishing pros are struggling to identify problematic content, it’s also that they may be under-appreciating literary achievement and/or content insights grounded in traditions and perspectives outside their own familiarity. That under-appreciation may result in rejected manuscripts and less acclaim than is merited. This, in turn, reduces sales, the number of books reaching kids (those who’ll “get” what’s great and those who’ll join them only by more exposure), and the number of titles from underrepresented communities. And that of course means fewer authors from those communities who’re able to sell, teach, and raise the much-needed awareness. Or put another way, I’ve had more than one POC/Native writer ask me something along the lines of “To succeed in publishing, do I need to write this like a white person? Or for white readers first?” Right now, the pragmatic answer arguably may arguably be “yes,” but it doesn’t have to be and we’re all less enriched from that result. The best antidote is (a) publishing/reading more books originating in the reflected communities; (b) centering own voices; (c) engaging in a respectful dialogue with members of those communities.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 03:13
Mike Jung
It's nice to find such an oasis of calm during our current firestorm of aggression and fear--OH WAIT, SORRY, WHAT WAS I THINKING I appreciate Jason Low's words here very much; at a time when white supremacy, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and xenophobia have been installed in the highest seats of power in our country (and, in fact, the entire world), it's easy to lose sight of the nuances and complexities of the work we've been doing to make children's literature a truly inclusive field. But we can't, can we? If we decide to put our focus solely on the most visible and unmistakable markers of hatred (and to be clear, we must put a LARGE part of our focus on them), we risk letting slip the boundaries on what we consider normal and acceptable in our society, do we not? Shifting the Overton Window (and I'll have you know I looked it up in an academic database, no Google for this future librarian, no ma'am) doesn't happen solely on the bomb-detonation level of a presidential election, does it? It seems clear to me that the window gets moved incrementally, bit by bit, through obfuscation, subterfuge, and misdirection. It happens through use of verbiage, doesn't it? Otherwise, why would any of us unreasonably liberal types be concerned that the media makes such free and easy use of the term "alt-right" when what they really mean is white supremacy? Why would it matter that respected mainstream news outlets describes Steve Bannon as a "media provocateur" when he can more accurately be described as an anti-Semitic propagandist? The fact that neo-Nazis are very deliberately using the coded phrase "you and your ilk" when sending attacking messages to Jewish authors matters. Of course, there are people who disagree with me on that, who believe that kind of verbiage use DOESN'T matter, that those are just more examples of namby-pamby hairsplitting. I don't think so, however. I don't think the old O.W. shifts only when a leering horn-headed devil shows up in the living room with a pitchfork; it happens in so many more subtle ways too, and seeing the reality of those subtle, covert, painstakingly crafted things still matters. It still matters. Mustering up the will to probe our own internal biases, even when it's painful and exposing, maybe especially when it's painful and exposing, still matters. Working to support people from marginalized communities as they break into the publishing industry still matters. Questioning the value of defending ourselves and our work as beyond reproach still matters. Cultural appropriation still matters. Microaggressions still matter. We Need Diverse Books matters. The words of Jason Low, Debbie Reese, Allie Jane Bruce, Anne Ursu, Malinda Lo, Sarah Park Dahlen, and many others who've left comments here, and many others who haven't, still matter. In fact, they matter more than ever.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 03:13
Stacy Whitman
On the topic of publishing professionals who need to be trained to recognize problems with regard to racist content, upholding stereotypes, etc.: I personally have benefited from the kind of education that Jason discusses in the article. I'm a better editor for having worked at Lee & Low and had the kind of education I've gotten from writers and friends of color writing about diversity and representation and inclusion, particularly thinking about our audience: the children and teens we're publishing books for. I am a white editor who grew up on a farm in the Midwest who was pretty clueless about racial issues. In my first years of editing, I heard a lot from librarians that their teen patrons were more and more diverse, and I knew about the changing demographics of our country, but I didn't know what I didn't know. Being able to read blogs like Debbie's made me more aware of issues relating to Native American representation. Reading African American writers and critics' blogs and academic work did the same for issues of representation in that vein. And so forth. Being an editor means becoming a lifelong student. When I edit a book about a historical event, I seek to learn as much as I can about that historical event so I can edit the book more effectively. The same applies to subjects of race and culture, or even editing cross culturally. For example, there was a lot I had to learn about editing cross-culturally. Scholastic editor Cheryl Klein and I discussed this on a podcast with our authors, Joseph Bruchac and Eric Gansworth, a few years back (see http://www.thenarrativebreakdown.com/archives/698)---we both had a lot to learn as we edited authors whose cultures were different from our own experiences. It is our responsibility as publishing professionals to seek out ways to grow professionally. Our craft is improved as we educate ourselves.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 02:50
Angie Manfredi
Well, I personally don't know what all the fuss is. Mr. Grant is absolutely right! Now is NOT the time to care about things like BOOKS or messages media can send. There's plainly NO VALUE in those messages. I mean imagine if we had studies that proved that children were impacted by media/books. Imagine if any of us had ever actually observed that. Thankfully, we know that has NO IMPACT and books/media are just diversionary, ephemeral entertainments that really don't matter to anyone at all and certainly have no real consequence. Whew! I'd also like to thank Mr. Grant for pointing out unless THE TRAIL OF TEARS is happening, we can't really KNOW it's racism! That's the exact kind of reasoning I KNOW Donald Trump isn't a racist. I mean has he ever come right out and burned a cross while shouting WHITE PRIDE, WORLDWIDE? He hasn't, has he? SO how can I possibly be expected to know he is racist! Caring about SMALL details in books and writing or things like "cultural appropriation" is the same. If you don't write I'M RACIST after every paragraph in your book you could NEVER prove the author is racist. Great example, Mr. Grant! Oh and if you buy any of this - I've got a bridge to sell you. In solidarity, always, with Debbie Reese, Jason Low, We Need Diverse Books, and all the POC/FNN people working to make our field better.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 02:15
Vansetters
"It is the bestselling white male author trashing a Native woman all over the internet and derailing a comment thread on a post about making our industry better that is silencing. Wait a sec. Michael Grant only defended himself against an unprovoked (and entirely untrue) accusation of erasing Native people in a book. Now tell me who was derailing the comment thread?Posted : Nov 17, 2016 01:13
Justina
Have a Snickers, Michael. The idea that small instances of erasure and prejudice are irrelevant in the scheme of larger acts of racism fundamentally misunderstands how racism, and socialization, works. Those small acts of racism work to other out groups and make it easier for the big acts of racism to occur. So, yes, it's all important. But don't take my word for it, Google the cycle of socialization and do some honest to goodness reading. I'm happy to provide texts once you climbed out of your white fragility rage spiral.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 01:06
Megan Schliesman
"There are no shortcuts for the kind of vetting that needs to take place when publishing and reviewing the authenticity of diverse books. As with publishing in general, becoming an expert in diverse publishing and reviewing requires time and effort—perhaps even 10,000 hours. "While many publishers know how to make great books and reviewers are adept at spotting good stories, diversity is still outside most of our industry’s wheelhouse. Given that the majority of publishing staff is 79 percent white and reviewer staff is 89 percent white, we must ask ourselves whether the current workforce can ever treat the subject matter of diverse books with the same amount of deep understanding, compassion, and respect that books with white protagonists receive." Yes, this is an industry-wide issue that demands we respond as both an industry and as individuals. The fact that it's messy and painful to challenge let alone change the status quo is obvious, but that makes it no less essential and perhaps all the moreso. Thank you to all who do this work each and every day.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 12:52
Vansetters
Michael, You are doing the Lord's work here. Wish that others had the bravery to stand up to this nonsense.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 12:51
Chelsea Couillard-Smith
I want to add my thanks to Dr. Debbie Reese and the many others who work tirelessly to push authors, publishers, librarians, and reviewers to be better for children. I think Anne Ursu said it best: "It is the bestselling white male author trashing a Native woman all over the internet and derailing a comment thread on a post about making our industry better that is silencing. For POC and Native scholars and writers, there is such a great cost to speaking up. My endless admiration to those who do it anyway, despite this kind of bullying." Thank you, Anne Ursu, for putting it so eloquently. This is not how to be an ally, Mr. Grant, no matter how much money you throw around. And please, Debbie Reese, WNDB, and others who are brave enough to keep asking difficult questions of the children's literature community, don't stop. I will do my best to continue to listen and learn and speak up when you are attacked. And thanks to Allie Bruce, Sarah Park Dahlen, Anne Ursu, Reading While White et al, and others who I know are often the first to stand up for those being attacked for asking difficult questions. You set an example for the rest of us to be more courageous allies.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 12:47
Ed Spicer
I taught first grade for 17 years in a very white school district. Most of my students came into my classroom believing that "Indians" meant ALL Indians (no tribal differences) and that they were all dead. Even in 2015! I very much understand and appreciate why Debbie (and many others would notice and report any and all erasures.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 12:45
Allie Bruce
People's Institute for Survival and Beyond Undoing Racism training: http://pisab.org/workshops Border Crossers training: http://www.bordercrossers.org/form/ SEED seminars: nationalseedproject.org Robin DiAngelo on White Fragility: https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116Posted : Nov 17, 2016 12:41
Malinda Lo
Jason -- thank you for this post. As a writer and as an Asian American, thank you for all the work that you and Lee & Low have done and continue to do on behalf of diversity (and Asian Americans in particular) in children's books.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 12:33
Elisa Gall
This page shows how ugly and damaging racism - whether implicit or explicit - can be when it is functioning in a space. That it shows itself in the comments section of an article about making the industry more inclusive (or anywhere for that matter) is not okay. I am grateful and motivated by people who are working tirelessly to keep the world of children's literature more responsive and accountable to our readers and learners every day. We White people have work to do.Posted : Nov 17, 2016 12:10
Sarah Park Dahlen
I also want to add my thanks to Jason Low, Dr. Debbie Reese, Edith Campbell, Dr. Ebony Thomas, all the folks at Lee & Low and WNDB and Reading While White, for the tireless work they/we do to educate, make and teach good books, teach people how to think critically about the literature we provide to young people, etc. I appreciate these public communications between and among authors, scholars, librarians, etc. They help me decide which books I should assign to my students, which ones I shouldn't, and why.Posted : Nov 16, 2016 11:40
Anne Ursu
Thanks for this, Jason. It seems like diversity training for publishers and reviewers is one immediate way toward making children's books safer and I hope more places follow your lead. I don't want any kid harmed by books. Like Kate, I am grateful to Jason, Debbie, and so many other people--Edi Campbell, Dr. Ebony Thomas, Dr. Sarah Park Dahlen, Justina Ireland, Swati Avasthi, Ellen Oh, among many others--for teaching me about structural racism, and the direct connection between messages sent inadvertently in books and the harm done to people of color. I can see this myself in autism--the way harmful stereotypes get into books, the way these books are praised and awarded and recommended again and again as good portrayals by good, smart, caring people who just don't know what they don't know. If we can all open our eyes and our ears and listen to the people who speak up, at risk of everything from being trashed online to career consequences to death threats, that would be a good first step.Posted : Nov 16, 2016 11:25
Kate Barsotti
This article was reasonable and well-stated. As a white writer, I expect I'll screw up in horrible ways. I can try; I'll need help and expect to pay for expert advice. I don't find anything in this article that's in any way threatening or over-the-top. Jesus, people. We are kidlit folks and supposed to be better than this. Please stop attacking Dr. Reece. I'm begging you here.Posted : Nov 16, 2016 11:19
Sarah Hamburg
Thank you, Jason, for the article. The comments here illustrate just how much work this industry still has to do. Following the election results, I've seen many white people in children's publishing talking about the need to better understand those who voted for Trump. I've seen soul searching about living in "bubbles" and calls to reach out in empathy across political divides. But, I've seen little soul searching from white people in children's publishing about how the election connects to our own professions, and few calls for empathy, humility, and openness in listening to what people of color and Native people are saying -- and have been saying -- in our field right here. If those people want to understand how Trump was elected, they really need look no further than this comment thread. I don't say that as hyperbole (or as accusation.) The aggressive, reactionary response to people of color sharing plain facts about the industry, or to a Native woman stating a critique, or to the idea that expertise and knowledge aren't solely the province of overwhelmingly white reviewers and editors ... the anger driving this election isn't some unfathomable entity beyond the comprehension of "good white people" in children's publishing. It's ours, too. It's always been here. And it's ours to own and change, at this moment more than ever. (For the record, Debbie Reese is not a member of We Need Diverse Books. I am, but the views expressed here are my own.)Posted : Nov 16, 2016 11:15
Michael Grant
Tell you what, let's have the whole scene and see whether it is evidence of some anti-Native bias, or whatever other crazy is running around in Ms. Reese's head, shall we? Her grandfather turned on the radio. Country music. He was old, Grandpa Luke. Lots of kids had kind of young grandparents. In fact, Lana’s other grandparents, her Las Vegas grandparents, were much younger. But Grandpa Luke was old in that wrinkled-up-leather kind of way. His face and hands were dark brown, partly from the sun, partly because he was Chumash Indian. He wore a sweat-stained straw cowboy hat and dark sunglasses. “What am I supposed to do the rest of the day?” Lana asked. Grandpa Luke swerved to avoid a pothole. “Do whatever you want.” “You don’t have a TV or a DVD or internet or anything.” Grandpa Luke’s so-called ranch was so isolated, and the old man himself was so cheap, his one piece of technology was an ancient radio that only seemed to pick up a religious station. “You brought some books, didn’t you? Or you can muck out the stable. Or climb up the hill.” He pointed with his chin toward the hills. “Nice views up there.” “I saw a coyote up the hill.” “Coyote’s harmless. Mostly. Old brother coyote’s too smart to go messing with humans.” He pronounced coyote “kie-oat.” “I’ve been stuck here a week,” Lana said. “Isn’t that long enough? How long am I supposed to stay here? I want to go home.” The old man didn’t even glance at her. “Your dad caught you sneaking vodka out of the house for some punk.” “Tony is not a punk,” Lana shot back. Grandpa Luke turned the radio off and switched to his lec- turing voice. “A boy who uses a girl that way, gets her in the middle of his mess, that’s a punk.” “If I didn’t get it for him, he would have tried to use a fake ID and maybe have gotten in trouble.” “No maybe about it. Fifteen-year-old boy drinking booze, he’s going to find trouble. I started drinking when I was your age, fourteen. Thirty years of my life I wasted on the bottle. Sober now for thirty-one years, six months, five days, thank God above and your grandmother, rest her soul.” He turned the radio back on. “Plus, the nearest liquor store’s ten miles away in Perdido Beach.” Grandpa Luke laughed. “Yeah. That helps, too.” At least he had a sense of humor. The truck was bouncing crazily along the edge of a dry gulch that went down a hundred feet, down to more sand and sagebrush, stunted pine trees, dogwoods, and dry grasses. A few times a year, Grandpa Luke had told her, it rained, and then the water would go rushing down the gulch, sometimes in a sudden torrent. It was hard to imagine that as she gazed blankly down the long slope. Then, without warning, the truck veered off the road. Lana stared at the empty seat where her grandfather had been a split second earlier. He was gone. The truck was going straight down. Lana lurched against the seat belt. The truck picked up speed. It slammed hard into a sapling and snapped it. Sorry about the layout but it's from a PDF. So. This is the entirety of Ms. Reese's grounds for accusing me of "erasing" Native Americans. And it makes me "part of the problem." Okay, I want to learn so show me. Show me what is anti-Native in there. Show me the erasure.Posted : Nov 16, 2016 10:58
SLJ Admin
Please refer to SLJ's comments policy and refrain from personal attacks. Focus on the ideas, not the person, and please be respectful. SLJ AdminPosted : Nov 16, 2016 10:57
Karen Jensen
Part of this discussion seems to be about big racism vs "little racism". Yes, the Trail of Tears is an example of a moment of horrific racism. But children dressing up as "Indians" for Halloween perpetuate those stereotype and other a group of people that leads to internalized racism that allows these bigger moments of racism to happen. As an example, Mr Grant uses both the idea that "you're nuts" and calls Debbie Reese a crank in these comments. Those are age old terms used to demoralize and other those struggling with mental illness. They are little moments of bigotry and bias against a people group that leads to a cultural norm that stigmatizes mental illness. "Like a girl" and "don't be a pussy" are sexist examples that do the same. The little moments do in fact matter because they feed into the big moments. The Holocause couldn't have happened without years, decades, of stereotyping and accepted anti-Semitic speech and ideals. Our current state of affairs is less likely to have happened if we had all worked harder to call out the little moments of bigotry, racism and sexism that we see and hear on a daily basis. I'm terrified for the safety of my teens given current events. Language matters. Representation matters. The fight for justice must be done on both the micro and the macro level.Posted : Nov 16, 2016 10:56
Michael Grant
$333,000 in 2014, $68,000 in 2015. You know what that is, aside from an 80% drop in just one year? That's what the organization, We Need Diverse Books took in. Why. That's the question. Surely they've reached out to publishers. Surely they've reached out to writers of means. And yet, they took in one fifth of what they took in the previous year. What does that tell you? That the tactics employed by WNDB and its amen corners are working? Or does it maybe just slightly suggest that whatever they're doing isn't exactly helpful? Here's an organization whose slogan easily 95% of writers and editors embrace. As I do. We do need diverse books. Everyone here, everyone at every school library, everyone in publishing, we all agree. And yet, somehow, WNDB is circling the drain. But like the Barry McGuire song goes, "You tell me over and over and over again, my friends, that you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction." I'm sure you all know the old saw about insanity being when you do the same thing and expect different results. So, how's the shame and denounce and wallow in righteousness thing working? Publishers and individual donors shy away from WNDB because they think it's a bunch of Debby Reeses. They think it looks shaky and unstable and it has a bad odor left from bullying Handler out of 100k. They shy away because people who should know better are congratulating themselves on the destruction of books. In short: WNDB allies and supporters have acted and sounded like extremist nuts. The smug circle does not attract new members. Of course it's not intended to, is it, not really? The Reese et al circle of smug is all about feeling morally superior and owning a status. Now, if WNDB had chosen more rational leadership, if they had chosen a more rational path, they'd be cashing nice publisher checks and probably one of mine as well, and accomplishing a great deal more, because we all agree on the goal. But no one is giving money or supporting a McCarthyite hit squad composed of self-appointed inquisitors capable of losing its collective sh-t over imaginary infractions of unpublished rules. The people hurting the cause of diversity are those using it for self-aggrandizement or status or profit, and employing the most shameful of tactics in doing so.Posted : Nov 16, 2016 10:12
Kate Messner
I'm grateful for people like Jason Low and Debbie Reese, who are doing important work for underrepresented kids and working tirelessly, despite constant pushback, to make things better.Posted : Nov 16, 2016 09:52
Debbie Reese
For those who haven't seen Michael Grant's proclamations on diversity, see his blog post here: https://medium.com/@MichaelGrantBks/on-diversity-fa3cefb0e0a7#.n29p22u11 He started with this: "Let me put this right up front: there is no YA or middle grade author of any gender, or of any race, who has put more diversity into more books than me. Period." And then offers to give money to a favorite charity if you can prove there's someone who has done more. And then, he lists all the books where he has diverse characters. But none where there's a main character who is Native. That he does, in fact, have one in a book and can't remember tells me a lot.Posted : Nov 16, 2016 06:43
Sylvia Liu
Kudos, Jason, for being on the forefront of the effort to share an open-minded vision about diversity and inclusion for almost two decades. It does feel like we're facing a different national discussion at this moment, but your article is just as relevant, if not more. If I've learned anything from the election results, is that for a broad part of the population, race is just not at the forefront of their thinking. The privilege of not having to think about race (or the consequences of their choices on people superficially unlike themselves) is the same privilege that leads to the reviewers/ publishers not being equipped to assess the accuracy or sensitivity of a diverse book. It's all part of the mindset that racial equality is an afterthought, a check box to check, instead of the central moral issue (inequality in general) in our society. So it does matter that publishers do their best to expand their lists to be more inclusive, and to do it well. And yes, the Titanic is sinking, but Lee and Low is doing a pretty darn good job throwing out those lifeboats, publishing books about inclusion, acceptance, diversity.Posted : Nov 16, 2016 05:32
Crouch C.W.
Yawn. What does "diversity" have to do with "sensitivity"? What the publishing world needs is diverse *thinkers* and people willing to engage in strenuous and thoughtful argument and discussion, not "sensitivity" and "diversity" "training" based upon "cultural/racial/ethnic groups." Living, breathing individual human beings are not reducable to mere "cultural/racial/ethnic groups." * * * * *Posted : Nov 14, 2016 07:49
Allie Jane Bruce
For anyone interested in doing the work: I highly recommend The People's Institute for Survival and Beyond's Undoing Racism training (pisab.org). It provides language, connections, and tools to turn our good intentions into concrete, organizing actions we can undertake, and a common analysis. Mr. Grant - Surely you understand that this article was written, and scheduled, before the election. I appreciate your anger. I'm angry too. But it is not OK for you to lash out against Jason Low, a person of color who has been working tirelessly for change. You undermine everything you claim to stand for.Posted : Nov 10, 2016 09:04
Michael Grant
Perfect. We've just elected a misogynist, racist, fascist wanna-be, every troglodyte pig and junior KKK member is turning handsprings, and over here in kidlit world we're still prattling on about cultural appropriation. Hey: 50% of the country just told people like us to drop dead. Actual children, Latinos and Muslims in particular, are scared to death and with good cause. Maybe time to wonder if we've lost the plot just a bit? Maybe start by asking ourselves how good a job we've done conveying basic civic virtues and a core understanding of democracy? Maybe wonder why we're still parading our exquisitely-attuned sensitivities at a point where we writers and librarians and teachers are having the limits of our influence rudely shoved in our faces? Because I really don't think we're doing our readers or the country much good getting ever more precious in our detection of error. It is time to cut this academic b.s. and get ready to push back against a very non-imaginary, completely un-nuanced, actual, flesh-and-blood, no-semantic-analysis-required, straight up misogynist and racist. That, Mr. Low, is the fight, not sieving for obscure examples of cultural appropriation. We are no longer reading The Boy Who Cried Wolf now, it's The Three Little Pigs and there's an honest-to-God wolf at the door. We have real evil to deal with, we don't need the artisanal kind.Posted : Nov 10, 2016 06:29