To the Editor:
Re “The Vetting of Children’s Books: Is It Sensitivity or Censorship?” (front page, Dec. 24):
As the author of a children’s book, I congratulate you for tackling the complex question of who judges cultural sensitivity in children’s books.
As my book reflects my global life in many cultures and countries, I was not subjected to a “sensitivity reader,” but I would certainly have questioned such a reader’s expertise, experience and assumptions.
Cultural sensitivity requires a subtle text that goes beyond mere “tokenism.” The art of selecting a palette of characters from different backgrounds requires an author to dwell in the skin, heart and voice of each to give authenticity.
The reward is in the response of a variety of readers of all ages who say, “Oh yes, I can relate to that character.”
PAMELA ELLEN FERGUSON
AUSTIN, TEX.
The writer is the author of “Sunshine Picklelime.”
To the Editor:
You take for granted a question that has unfolded around representation in children’s literature: Does hiring sensitivity readers as “quality-control backstops” amount to censorship?
What is missing is a structural analysis that challenges the very question. Why are publishers of children’s literature so starkly at odds with their readership in the first place?
Look at the racial makeup of the publishing industry: The industry remains, despite its best efforts, 87 percent white (according to Publishers Weekly’s 2017 salary and jobs survey).
Instead of asking whether we are censoring white editorial visions, we should ask how a white industry might begin to better share the power of editorial decision making with people of color.
Hire sensitivity readers as editors, and promote them to positions of power! Greater racial diversity within the publishing industry might obviate the need for sensitivity readers entirely (and spare us commentary that casts people of color as censors!).
SARAH SWONG, NEW YORK
The writer is an editorial and publishing assistant at The New Press.
Continue reading the main story