Editing vs. Censorship
It's time for our regularly scheduled SFWA squabble. Here's a piece by C.C. Finlay and a piece by David Gerrold. You know how I express my dissatisfaction with this organization that seems to start a brawl every few months? I stay away from it, and associate with saner ones.
Let me explain the difference in between editing and censorship. (Credentials: I am a professional editor. I am a diploma-holding literary scholar.) These things are about the power differential between people who make decisions, and people who are affected by those decisions ...
Editing is soliciting, selecting, and polishing the best material you can get for your publication. That doesn't mean you sit on your ass and just pick your personal favorites. It means you need to know the material well enough to identify the best offerings. It means if you spot a gap in your goodies -- oh, say, if your readership states that they want more diversity -- then you go out and find some to put in your pages. A good editor encourages people to create and submit stuff; the more, the merrier. Now, you can't and shouldn't publish everything. The rejections should be based on quality, not bias, so long as they suit the parameters in your submission guidelines. If you want to talk about controversial topics, great, get people to comment on those in a responsible manner.
Censorship is when you use your position of power -- any power -- to shut people up and/or control the information that other people can access. This causes problems. First, it pisses people off. Second, it can lose you money and support, thus causing your publication or your government to go under. Making your editorial environment hostile to certain groups -- such as women, queerfolk, people of color, the lower class, or whomever else you've decided to hate -- is censorship. If you don't publish work by people of a certain group, or publish proportionally less of it than submitted by people you like, or you don't pay them as well, or you frequently print things that are abusive toward a particular group, or you don't review their books, that's discrimination. It's not a victimless offense, either: it directly undercuts people's ability to make money and therefore survive in this society, and to access different cultural viewpoints and therefore make good decisions about interacting with other people. Now, that's often legal if you're not a publically funded organization. That doesn't make it okay. That doesn't make it particularly good business practice either. It certainly does not make for the best cultural material.
You can make whatever stuff you want. You can publish whatever stuff you want. You can buy whatever stuff you want. That's all part of free will and a free marketplace. But when you use your freedom in attempt to throttle someone else's freedom or otherwise hurt people, that makes trouble for everyone. So if you decide to practice censorship, some people will complain about that, as well they should. You can run a clubhouse however you want. If your professional organization mainly comes to people's attention when it gets into an argument or does something embarassing, however, that's not really what most folks want from a professional organization. This will likely be reflected in your membership.
Happily there is also the Speculative Literature Foundation. I'm not a member, but I do respect their accomplishments and professional bearing. Notice that their diversity chops appear toward the top of the page.
EDIT 2/11/14:
annathepiper has linked several posts on this topic.
Let me explain the difference in between editing and censorship. (Credentials: I am a professional editor. I am a diploma-holding literary scholar.) These things are about the power differential between people who make decisions, and people who are affected by those decisions ...
Editing is soliciting, selecting, and polishing the best material you can get for your publication. That doesn't mean you sit on your ass and just pick your personal favorites. It means you need to know the material well enough to identify the best offerings. It means if you spot a gap in your goodies -- oh, say, if your readership states that they want more diversity -- then you go out and find some to put in your pages. A good editor encourages people to create and submit stuff; the more, the merrier. Now, you can't and shouldn't publish everything. The rejections should be based on quality, not bias, so long as they suit the parameters in your submission guidelines. If you want to talk about controversial topics, great, get people to comment on those in a responsible manner.
Censorship is when you use your position of power -- any power -- to shut people up and/or control the information that other people can access. This causes problems. First, it pisses people off. Second, it can lose you money and support, thus causing your publication or your government to go under. Making your editorial environment hostile to certain groups -- such as women, queerfolk, people of color, the lower class, or whomever else you've decided to hate -- is censorship. If you don't publish work by people of a certain group, or publish proportionally less of it than submitted by people you like, or you don't pay them as well, or you frequently print things that are abusive toward a particular group, or you don't review their books, that's discrimination. It's not a victimless offense, either: it directly undercuts people's ability to make money and therefore survive in this society, and to access different cultural viewpoints and therefore make good decisions about interacting with other people. Now, that's often legal if you're not a publically funded organization. That doesn't make it okay. That doesn't make it particularly good business practice either. It certainly does not make for the best cultural material.
You can make whatever stuff you want. You can publish whatever stuff you want. You can buy whatever stuff you want. That's all part of free will and a free marketplace. But when you use your freedom in attempt to throttle someone else's freedom or otherwise hurt people, that makes trouble for everyone. So if you decide to practice censorship, some people will complain about that, as well they should. You can run a clubhouse however you want. If your professional organization mainly comes to people's attention when it gets into an argument or does something embarassing, however, that's not really what most folks want from a professional organization. This will likely be reflected in your membership.
Happily there is also the Speculative Literature Foundation. I'm not a member, but I do respect their accomplishments and professional bearing. Notice that their diversity chops appear toward the top of the page.
EDIT 2/11/14:
annathepiper has linked several posts on this topic.