[Emitt Evan Baker]

A really fascinating exchange over at Rattle regarding race and editorial responsibility.


https://www.facebook.com/RattleMagazine?fref=ts

[Quincy Lehr]

An all-white issue representing a majority non-white city is... beyond unfortunate, and I can understand, indeed sympathize with the anger that Joey et al. felt, but in this instance, Tim Green's heading in the right direction, and as someone on the ed board of a magazine whose submissions pool skews heavily white and male left to its own devices, I can see how such things can occur if one isn't vigilant. Clearly, Rattle wasn't vigilant but plans to be more so in the future.

[Charlie Southerland]

"So if you have any suggestions for poets that we should solicit, please let me know,"

So now, the editorial board is intent upon sharing or relieving itself from the responsibility of finding the best quality poems no matter who writes them, to anyone with an interest or agenda for diversity at the expense of quality. Why have an editor at all? I've been reading Rattle since forever, and have always thought they found the best work by emerging and established writers. How can anyone aspire to the goals of getting their work published there if the goal of the journal isn't to publish the very best work submitted, regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation or politics or religion? I always thought that the editor's jobs depended on getting quality results, not (self) mandated social engineering. If the best 17 poems they had were from the island of Tonga, who cares? Who cares if the best 17 poems from New York were from white folks? Should his statement of embarrassment apply to those 17 white poets who sent their best work? What a crock.

[Emitt Evan Baker]

Charlie, when an editor asks their artist base a question like that they are already inserting a desire for high standards into the premise because we all love what is beautiful to us.

When an individual asks the full community of humans that question, the individual is recognizing a barrier-- be it policy, fence, or history-- between them and certain valuable works and seeking help to increase the level of wonder and fine wording and color.

Maybe there will be a call for xenophobic sapphics. While not a race per se, it is hard to imagine a rarer shade of white. This might play out well.

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

"So if you have any suggestions for poets that we should solicit, please let me know,"

So now, the editorial board is intent upon sharing or relieving itself from the responsibility of finding the best quality poems no matter who writes them, to anyone with an interest or agenda for diversity at the expense of quality. Why have an editor at all? I've been reading Rattle since forever, and have always thought they found the best work by emerging and established writers. How can anyone aspire to the goals of getting their work published there if the goal of the journal isn't to publish the very best work submitted, regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation or politics or religion? I always thought that the editor's jobs depended on getting quality results, not (self) mandated social engineering. If the best 17 poems they had were from the island of Tonga, who cares? Who cares if the best 17 poems from New York were from white folks? Should his statement of embarrassment apply to those 17 white poets who sent their best work? What a crock.

In an ideological sense, you're correct. In a perfect world, every editor would be able to choose the "best" work without worrying about issues of race (etc.), because in a perfect world, the results would be completely representative OF all races.

Of course, it's not a perfect world. Also, editorial biases are invariably at play -- usually subconsciously -- meaning that many typical white male editors will have a selection bias toward white male poets. This is nothing new, but it takes a kind of "affirmative action" of the mind to correct for it. That's what Tim Green seems to be doing.

Additionally, when you get as many submissions as Rattle does, you're bound to leave hundreds of publication-worthy poems on the table. For a big enough press, there's a certain level of interchangeability when it comes to the cream of the crop. If an editor can sub out one publication-worthy poem for another by a poet of an underrepresented race (etc.), where's the harm?

I can understand some of the reluctance against what really is a kind of affirmative action, but diversity is a legitimate issue -- in the arts, as elsewhere -- and I'm certainly happy to see more underrepresented groups in print, so long as the quality of the work is high. And knowing Rattle as I do, it will be.

[John Whitworth]

Are not most of the best poets both white and male? I'm not very sure what is to be done about that.

[Emitt Evan Baker]

I can imagine why your list appears that way John. You always make it clear that you are your top seven.

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by John Whitworth

Are not most of the best poets both white and male? I'm not very sure what is to be done about that.

Correction: most of the best KNOWN poets are white and male, and Tim Green seems to know what is to be done about that.

[Julie Steiner]

Cross-posted with a bunch of people.

I share your concerns, Charlie, and can add a few of my own. Such as how, practically speaking, Joey et al. managed to ascertain the races of the 17 authors of the New York feature poems; and how it is possible to either prove one's own racial identity to everyone's satisfaction, or determine others' racial identity, considering the recent Rachel Dolezal fracas. Would she be black enough to suit Joey? Probably not.

On the other hand, the ugly truth remains that the quality argument--i.e., "the minority candidates just weren't as good as the majority candidates"--has traditionally been used to justify underrepresentation of all sorts of groups from all sorts of activities. I'm not saying that this is the case at Rattle...[Edited to say: and indeed, diversity has been a hallmark of Rattle, and it's one of the main reasons why I subscribe]...but elsewhere I have definitely noticed that "good" often really means "relatable to a white male"--not for any sinister, overtly "racist" reason, but simply because the screeners and judges are (predominantly) white males who don't realize their own biases.

[Edited to say: And yes, everyone on the planet is biased by the limitations of his or her own experience, however empathetic one may be with the common humanity of others.]

[Quincy Lehr]

1. What Shaun and Emitt said in particular.
2. My big problem with terms like "white supremacist" being lobbed at the likes of Tim Green, who does not seem to consciously believe that white people make better poets, is that it poses the question of what we do with the likes of the usual suspects like John and Charlie, who do?
3. New York's population, as of 2008, was around 44.6 percent white, including some who identify as both white and Hispanic. Even with a small sample, a 100% white feature is highly suspect, as Tim Green notes. Either the racists are right and white men make significantly better poets, or the general racial biases of American society have infected the submissions process (probably unintentionally) and should be addressed.

Stay classy, John and Charlie!