In the 16th issue of [X]press, which came out a couple weeks ago, the editors included a self-audit of the paper's photography to check our coverage for diversity. It was the last issue of the newspaper under Ian Thomas' editorship.
Someone asked me on Tuesday (each issue is sent to the printer on a Wednesday deadline) to write a response, something from the oncoming editor to show how the audit would be interpreted and applied towards building a better newspaper. Reading the paper's official explanation for the audit and taking ideological issue with it, I submitted the following, which was printed in the issue, below the main article:
Discussions of diversity always make me squeamish, chiefly because the discussion is usually based on presumptions that fundamentally reinforce the bigotry such conversations are meant to combat.
The [X]press staff addressed in this issue a proportional discord between the recorded ethnic makeup of the campus population and the perceived ethnicity of individuals found in published [X]press photography. The article begins by stating our paper’s goal to represent the multi-cultural population that makes our school “what it is,” and goes on without transition to explain how we’ve tested that representation by auditing our photography. The auditing process seems to be no more sophisticated than looking at people in the photos and concluding, “That’s a black guy; that’s a Chinese girl,” and so on.
I appreciate this is not an exact science. Diversity of coverage is a tricky thing to quantify, largely because there is so much disagreement on its definition. And our auditors must tread cautiously, carefully navigating the incredibly provocative waters diversity issues often churn. My heart goes out to them for the enormity and complexity of their task, and I admire their devotion to the idea that diversity is so important.
But setting aside even the absurd conclusion that skin color and bone structure are the defining elements of one’s cultural identity (remember, at the moment we were targeting the importance of representing cultures, not races), I’m astonished we’re accepting this particular definition of diversity with so little scrutiny.
After all, I’ve always struggled to maintain belief in the idea that what defines us as people are our thoughts, our feelings, and our actions. What makes a community meaningfully diverse is a wealth of individual beliefs, perspectives and behavior, not a bunch of different-looking faces.
When we define diversity primarily in terms of what people look like, we give credence to the idea that a person is defined by those appearances. We accept or assume that societal forces are beyond each individual’s control to absorb and react to in his or her own fashion, and in so doing we demean and discourage individuality and help create the stereotypes we intend to dispel.
Skin color and gender are often important in determining the experiences that shape our beliefs and the way we behave around others, yes, and this does often result in groups of people with comparable ideology and behavior who look similar to each other. To that extent, I agree that our paper this semester has left room for improvement in portraying the true diversity of our community, and I pledge to work towards correcting that in the coming months.
At the same time, I must make clear that my first priority will always be to promote a diversity defined by ideas and perspectives, above and beyond the aesthetic differences that have for so long afflicted our efforts to join together.
Like everybody else, I’m only one person, and have only the benefit of one personal perspective. Our team next semester will work diligently and passionately towards providing as inclusive and accurate a portrayal of our community as possible, but we will need help. I strongly encourage our readers to speak up, and let us know when we are missing out on important perspectives and angles. The true power of the press lies in its close communication with the people. With an engaged and scrutinous audience, I am confident we can build a newspaper of true diversity and integrity.
So, the next day, when the issue was actually printed and distributed, Thomas came to me angry and upset. He said he felt my column undermined the audit and made it look like they'd done all that work for nothing, and that he wouldn't have run it if he'd known about it - apparently, nobody had shown this to him.
An important side point raised there: who's responsible for ensuring the editor sees everything that goes in the paper? I'm going in with the assumption that it's up to me, and we're considering a sign-off system whereby pages may not be sent to the printer unless they're signed off by me, Managing Editor Courtney Durso, Art Director Chris Wybenga and one of our photo editors. Things get crazy on layout day, and we'll need something systematic to ensure that we're always on top of it.
Back to the diversity issue: I offered Thomas a chance to continue the public debate by dedicating a page of our special graduation issue to a dialogue between the two of us. I recognized that my column had unfortunately been run without any counterargument, and I thought we'd all look more thoughtful and mature by correcting that. He seemed happy with the suggestion, and while we didn't end up actually completing that project, I felt like the issue had been settled now that he and I were on happy terms.
Of course, I was wrong about that.
A few days later, the blog Double Consciousness ran two entries of critique. They were written by Christine Joy Ferrer, a staff writer on the paper this semester, and Jack Stephens, a photographer also on the paper.
Ferrer, who'd been in the room when Thomas confronted me, wrote:
Damn, I have never felt so awkward, disheartened, angry, and yet so very proud before in my life. A few days ago while I was sitting in the journalism lab at SF State, talking to the new [X]press newspaper editors for next semester, Ian Thomas, the current head editor, stormed into the room consumed with frustration. He was pissed off at the soon-to-be editor Sean Maher for his column that we published in this week's current issue... Basically, Maher was inadvertently saying that race doesn't matter and that we need to be colorblind.
... Thomas flung the paper behind his head in outrage, exclaiming that he was pissed off. He was also upset that the team of editors did not consult him about this editorial because if he would have known, he wouldn't have allowed it to run. Thomas also didn't want our readers to get the impression that this represented [X]press' true beliefs. He told Maher that what he had said was very typical of a white, straight male to say. Ironically, both editors are white, straight male college students. But obviously, one is more conscious of class, racial privilege, while the other remains color-blind, ignorant, and oblivious to his privilege.
... I was so proud that Thomas spoke up and that the situation literally brought him to tears-- a conscious, privileged male who's attempted walk in the shoes of "the other" apart from his own. With all do [sic] respect, I can't say the same for Maher (Sidenote: Maher was willing to continue this dialogue and carry it into the next issue to better address diversity).
Stephens followed up with a 4,000 word content analysis of my column:
Since Christine gave you guys the background over this sad state of affairs at the newspaper we work for I'm going to be breaking down Maher's article (It's not online, only in the paper) word by word to show the utter stupidity, and recklessness, of his (not to mention completely unaware of his own white privilege) argument.
... Maher's life has been shaped by the fact that he is white... Race and gender have never been issues for him growing up. The only time race has ever been an issue for him is if someone gives him a mirror and tells him that the reason he is privileged is because of the color of his skin. This makes Maher "squeamish."
... Maher is oblivious to this. If he is surrounded by a sea of white faces who think differently and have different opinions on many things than [sic] he sees diversity. He's blind to the fact that the people around him are all white. He's blind to this not because of any moral superiority to someone who would see all of the white faces around him but instead is blind because he fails to look at his own privilege.
... Maher isn't acknowledging the fact that while whites make up only 36% of the school's demographics they make up nearly half of all people pictured in our newspaper. Yet he is telling us that diversity does matter? But diversity in opinion and not racial? Even though race is still important in this country and that race effects [sic] the way people are perceived and the way people percieve [sic] the world. This is not just wholly ignorant but disgusting as well!
... Sadly, with thinking such as his, [X]Press will only continue to contribute to the everyday acceptance of white privilege, white supremacy, and the ignoring of the racial realities of America.
Wow.
I didn't expect to run my column without controversy or debate - it's a galvanizing, inflammatory subject for a lot of people - but whatever the strengths and weaknesses of my arguments, I'm amazed by how quickly and vehemently the reaction involved personal attacks. The rampant assumption (and subsequent condemnation) regarding my personal history, in Stephens' article especially, is alarming.
Diversity is a dense and difficult issue, and I don't claim to have everything figured out; the debate rages on, as I know it must, and I expect I've still much to learn.
But I neither regret nor rescind my arguments, nor do I find much in the Double Consciousness critiques that truly, substantively addresses the stance I've taken - they're rife with ad hominem attacks and straw man fallacies, reflecting less that they understood my ideas than that a white man's thoughts on diversity issues may strike some audiences emotionally before they're absorbed intellectually. After all, nowhere in my column did I make or imply the blanket argument that Race Does Not Matter Ever, though this stand is attributed to me as the point from which both writers begin their debate.
The lesson as I see it from here is not to shy from saying things because people may get pissed: after all, pissed off people can be a lot of fun, and their writing can make working on the paper more engaging and exciting.
No, the lesson is to be ready for reactions that strike at me personally. After all, to an (admittedly very minor) extent, I become a public personality in taking on the role of editor. It's an unfortunate aspect of the job, but it's something I need to start emotionally and mentally preparing for; I imagine it's much the same for any editor.
