[Julie Steiner]

Well said, Janice. I'm content that Tim is fully repentant for his comment to Joey. And has always been concerned about the diversity of his magazine, too.

Originally Posted by Kyle Norwood

"Check out the fifty-point SAT penalty that some prestigious universities give to Asian-American applicants--apparently to keep those campuses from becoming predominantly Asian instead of predominantly white--and then let's chat again about how we're dumbing things down and lowering standards to help less-deserving students."

Julie, I assume you were citing this SAT penalty as an example of something that should not be done?

Yes. Everyone's heard of white students with less-than-stellar academic records and test scores suing because they were denied admission to their program of choice, presumably because racial minorities with far weaker academic records and test scores were admitted instead. But, ironically, some Asian-Americans claim that using race as an admission criterion is actually more about protecting the percentage of white admissions than it is about increasing the percentage of blacks and Hispanics. And it's Asian-Americans who are suing now, claiming that white admissions are being adjusted at the expense of Asians.

I agree that a university environment full of nothing but Asian-Americans would not be a good thing for anyone. But deliberately weeding out high achievers just because they're Asian isn't a good thing, either. And there have also been claims that Asians from overseas are dinging away at the Asian-American admissions, too, because universities want the extra money they can charge foreign students, but don't want to change the appearance of the racial mix on campus.

And then there's the matter of statistics that don't take people of mixed races into account. My daughters' choices for self-identification are usually "White Non-Hispanic," "Asian," "Other," or "Decline to State." Choose only one. Not very useful for data-gathering purposes. Which is another reason why I'm wary of using race as a determinant for anything. There's rarely any way of checking to see that someone is who they claim to be, or that a simplistic answer is accurate; and surely other things (which, admittedly, one's race may have affected) are far more important gauges of someone's ability to contribute something unique and valuable to the conversation.

[Norman Ball]

Tim's turnaround on submissions puts the rest of the sloetry industry to shame. As he knows, I call him the hardest working man in Po Biz.

[Siham Karami]

Nice points about Tim, for whom I have nothing but admiration. I was referring to the fact that his response was justified and for a solid reason, that reason owing much to the magazine's success and importance, hence the "hook" of responsibility for even unintended consequences increases. The "hook" of responsibility, but not accusation. Some of the argument was against his having to address this issue of racial representation, since his premise is to fairly judge submissions as they come. Actively seeking submissions from underrepresented sectors of a diverse society can't possibly be bad. In fact, "actively seeking submissions" is one of Tim's many ingredients for success. As is openness and actively engaging readers and subscribers. So this is essentially a sort of showcase of editorial excellence. Politicians could take note—the same methods work well there too.

[Matt Q]

One of things that came up on the FB discussion was the poem The last time I used the N-word by Tony Gloegger which was published in Rattle last year (Winter 2014, issue #46).

I'm interested in people's views on this poem. Is it racist (and even sickeningly and disgustingly so) as appeared to be the dominant response during that Facebook discussion. Is Rattle racist for publishing it, as was suggested? Or is the poem addressing/exploring racism by depicting it -- as I understood Tim and the author to be claiming?

When I first read the poem -- back in March when it was Rattle's daily poem -- I was of the latter view. Actually, I still believe that this was the poet's intention. However, the strength of some of the responses on FB has made me wonder if good intentions were sufficient here. Being white, like Tim and the author, I don't have a history of being to subject to racism, so perhaps I'm missing something offensive here that would be obvious to others. So, I'm interested, and a little confused, and I have yet to come to a clear conclusion.

I do also find it worth noting that back in March the poem was emailed out to many thousands of people as the Rattle daily poem and then posted on Rattle's Facebook page (and so appearing in many people's feeds) to no outrage or objection. In fact, it got just two comments: one from the author, and one, positive, from a reader. One would hope that a sickeningly racist poem would garner at least some objections when it appeared to such a large number of people. So I do find myself wondering to what extent the more recent responses stem from an atmosphere in which people were already angry and upset, and hence already polarised into them-and-us mode -- never the best time for the appreciation of subtleties and nuances I've found, and I do think a poem like this requires a certain degree of trust on the part of the reader. Incidentally, I think that it is this kind of polarisation, this them-and-us mind, that the poem addresses. Of course, I also can't ignore the possibility that people were offended by the poem because it is intrinsically offensive. Hence my post.

-Matt

[Quincy Lehr]

My reading was similar to Matt's.

[Emitt Evan Baker]

meh (useless post edited)