diversity – Your Editing Alternative

One of my favourite morning activities is to listen to the BBC News on the radio while preparing my breakfast. On one of these occasions, I heard an advertisement for a BBC podcast called Anatomy of a Cancellation, about the controversy around Kate Clanchy. The story intrigued me, especially the role of the publisher.

All the commotion was about Some Kids I Taught and What They Taught Me, a memoir in which the author – an award-winning writer and teacher – provides ‘[a] teacher’s honest, personal account of state education’, as described in a Guardian review in 2019, a few years before the controversy erupted on Twitter. Initially praised and awarded the prestigious Orwell prize, the book was later accused of using racist descriptions of children.

For me, the complete change in attitude towards the book and its author is one of the most interesting aspects of this case. The podcast outlines the sequence of events, allowing Clanchy’s critics to explain their positions and the author to respond. It also explores how the entire affair negatively impacted everyone involved. In doing so, it raises questions about publishing ethics, the dangers of social media and, most importantly, the importance of good, balanced editing!

In fact, I would have liked to hear more about the editing process, but the publisher refused to take part in the podcast. Episode 5 does feature an interview with a sensitivity reader (someone who reads a book to spot offensive content, stereotypes and bias), hired to review an edited version of the memoir. I was really struck by what she said about the emotional impact of words and the author–reader relationship. While I can see why some people are concerned that a sensitivity reader’s involvement could restrict an author’s freedom of speech, I agree that we are responsible for what we write and should always consider the potential hurt that words can cause.

In my opinion, it is one of the editor’s tasks to ensure that language does not reinforce stereotypes, for example by avoiding descriptors that refer to personal attributes such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age (as set out in these Inclusive Language Guidelines). Unless they are relevant and valid. But determining this is apparently not that straightforward!

While it is true that English is less heavily gendered than, say, Romance languages, I believe that some nouns aren’t as gender-neutral as people like to believe.

In fact, is there even such a thing as gender neutrality? In this article, hosted by the Coffee & Cocktails Podcast, I explain why I think we can’t always rely on gender-neutral terms, and why I don’t believe holding space for all possibilities necessarily makes everyone happy.

Coffee & Cocktails® Podcast

Dr Andrea Hajek

Although we are by now well into the twenty-first century, when it comes to gender diversity we often seem to be lingering in the past. Multiple attempts to oppose an Italian lawagainst homophobia and transphobia are only the most recent expressions of this reluctance to acknowledge nonbinary gender identities.

Something is changing though. Gender inclusivity is increasingly making its way into the language we use. One way to promote gender inclusivity is to avoid making references to a person’s gender, unless it is pertinent to the discussion. Here’s what the Inclusive language guidelines of the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) say on the matter:

Generally, descriptors that refer to personal attributes such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age, for example, tend to over-emphasize the distinguishing attribute. We recommend avoiding the use of such descriptors unless they are relevant and valid.

In other words, we must try…

View original post 598 more words

Category: diversity

Better with an editor than sorry: some reflections on the Kate Clanchy case

What’s in a name? Some reflections on diversity and inclusivity in language