Cancelling controversy doesn’t help us “do better”

Can the controversy about the review in The Fiddlehead Literary Magazine of a debut book of poetry by an Indigenous writer be turned into a learning experience? Not if readers aren’t allowed to read the disputed review and form their own opinion.

In case you aren’t aware of what I’m talking about, and why would you be since it only concerns the Canadian literati, The Fiddlehead is a Canadian literary magazine, published four times annually at the University of New Brunswick. It is the oldest Canadian literary magazine which is still in circulation.

In the last edition, a review of a debut book of poetry was published. The poet was Indigenous, the reviewer white. Their identities are not the issue, it’s the action that was taken when someone took offense to the review.

After stating that the review was ‘insensitive and ignorant”, that it “contributed to exactly the kind of colonial destructiveness that we should be working against” and that we “should be supporting healing and resistance, not perpetuating racism and pain”, here’s what the editor did:

– rounded up all the copies of the publication with the original review and chucked them in the dumpster,

– deleted any online evidence of it as well,

– paid to have “a competent review” written by an Indigenous reviewer

– reprinted another edition with the new review in it,

– fired the reviews editor and hired some Indigenous editors,

– blacklisted the the reviewer of original review,

– restructured the staff and had them all take sensitivity training with regard to Indigenous culture.

All that, plus an apology to the author, an apology to their readers, an apology to other Indigenous, Métis and Inuk writers and readers and to their wider communities and the declaration “We will do better.”

Is this disturbing to you? That someone writes something that another person deems offensive, we don’t know who other than the editor, and it’s deleted, erased, and censored?

I get it that the publisher of the magazine can do this, after all, they own the publication. Who’s to stop them. I guess the same could be said about mainstream media. If the corporate owners don’t like stories appearing on a certain issue, they probably don’t appear. Most journalists don’t want to lose their job going to the wall for an issue (especially in this age of gutted newsrooms) for something as annoying as a “principle” (remember them?) or, naive as professional integrity. Who cares? Beside, who’ll ever know?

What if we were allowed/permitted/granted the privilege of reading the disputed review along with the new “competent” one written by an Indigenous reviewer? By comparing the two reviews, perhaps we could learn how to approach the work of Indigenous writers with a new perspective. Learn from our mistakes. Maybe even correct them. We could also make our own decisions as to whether all the hand wringing and teeth gnashing was appropriate or even necessary.

Instead of taking the cowardly way, as we so often tend to do these days, why not go with courage – for a change.

The penny drops.

In a heated discussion on the Canada Writes Facebook site, something was brought to my attention that I never considered.

The big mystery surrounding this issue is why is wasn’t deemed offensive prior to publishing it and who got so offended once it was out that the editor felt she had go to such extreme measures to make amends?

The Fiddlehead is primarily funded by “the generous assistance of the University of New Brunswick, the Canada Council for the Arts, and the Province of New Brunswick.” Could this be the reason (or part of it) for the editor using the nuclear option regarding this review?

Any publication (or individual for that matter) who receives grants from governments has an inherent conflict of interest IMO. Once an institution, publication or individual begins to depend on these grants they are far less likely to do, say or publish anything that might jeopardize their livelihood. Even if pressure isn’t applied, it can become a form of self-censorship.

It’s an insidious and effective way to control organizations and individuals. I’ve seen it applied in journalism/media, non-profits and, of course, the arts including publishing.

The thing about conflict of interest is the appearance of it is as bad as the actual application. Once you or your organization is tainted with it, every decision you make is viewed with suspicion. In the eyes of some you’re forever compromised.

#courage #integrity #censorship #indigenouswriters #badreviews #fiddleheadreview #understanding #conflictofinterest