CCBC-Net Archives
RE: Caldecott at 75: Diversity (or lack their of)
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Reid, Robert A. <REIDRA_at_uwec.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 01:51:52 +0000
Colleen, Thanks for those stats. Yes, from a historical aspect, those numbers are im portant and make sense.
For the multicultural issues, it's also important to note that since the ye ar 2000, as the percentages of minorities continues to grow, there have bee n only 9 Caldecott winners and honor books illustrated by artists of color out of a total of 58 books. And 0 out of 10 the last 2 years.
I'm not saying future committees need to feel obligated to select multicult ural books based on percentages. It goes deeper - I believe it goes into as pects of cultural privilege/cultural backgrounds that whites have. Educatio n/awareness/acceptance of this for future committee members, as well as for all of us in the dominant group, is a beginning. Rob Reid
________________________________
From: Colleen Kelley
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:47 PM To: Kiera Parrott; Nick Glass (TeachingBooks.net) Cc: ccbc-net ccbc-net Subject: Re:
Caldecott at 75: Diversity (or lack their of)
I agree. And here is some perspective. If these numbers begin in 1938, when the first Caldecott was awarded, it is important to remember that in 1940, 89.8% of the US population was white (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_A merican). You can see in this table that in 1950 the percentage was 89.5, 1 960? 88.6%. In 1970, 87.5% of the US population was white. In 1980 it was 8 3.1%. In 1990, 80.3%. In 2000, 70.1%. And in 2010, 72.4%. Black Americans a re the largest racial minority, comprising 13% of the population (http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States). When you look back over such an expanse of time, I think you have to remember what these numbers represent historically and proportionately, and not simply look at numbers out of context.
Likewise with the representation of men and women. Women gained the right t o vote in 1920. In 1941, a disproportionate number of men to women went ove rseas until at least 1945. And the percentage of women to men in the workpl ace over this same time period is worth considering. However, "Why Don't Wo men Illustrators Win Caldecott Awards?" at http://rt19writers.blogspot.com/ 2012/01/why-dont-women-illustrators-win.html poses the question and lists a dditional links at the end of the discussion. According to "The First Ameri can Women Illustrators" (http://kidlitwhm.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-first-am erican-women-illustrators.html), a big problem with early female illustrato rs is that they left their careers to marry and raise families.
FYI: There are some interesting numbers at http://www.vidaweb.org/three-yea rs-to-stump-and-stack-and-stem that give a clear picture as far as adult bo oks go as to percentages of male and female who review and are reviewed for various publications. More information and discussion about this article c an be found here http://www.salon.com/2011/02/09/women_literary_publishing/ and here http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/04/research-male-writers -dominate-books-world, among others.
Colleen
Message-----
From: Kiera Parrott Sent: May 15, 2013 5:40 PM To: "Nick Glass (TeachingBooks.net)" Cc: ccbc-net ccbc-net Subject: Re:
Caldecott at 75: Diversity (or lack their of)
Hi everyone,
This is fascinating. Thom's question, "What do we do with this information? " is the central piece for me. Since the criteria only concerns itself with residency requirements for the illustrator (and since considering the gend er or ethnic background of the artist would actually be a violation of the terms of the criteria) then what can we do? (Besides creating more awards.)
Having recently gone through the selection experience, I can speak for myse lf (not my fellow committee members or past committees.) When I personally looked at books during my term, I was concerned with 1) eligibility and 2) how the art, design, and story held up to the criteria. Oftentimes I wouldn 't even look at the name of the author or illustrator until I wrote it in m y notes. For me, it was purely about the merits of the art.
That said, it does trouble me when I look at Thom's numbers. It would seem that the major awards are a reflection of the times and the culture in whic h they are chosen. If we want more award-winning picture books by more wome n and from a more diverse array of artists, I think we need to start at the very beginning. We need to begin valuing the arts again in schools. Childr en and young adults who have a talent & passion for art & design need to be nurtured. They need to be told that YES, you can have a career in the arts . So many kids (especially those in lower socio-economic spheres) are disco uraged from pursuing art as anything other than a hobby. There is a lot of misinformation about what it means to be a working artist or illustrator. K ids are told "that's not a real job" or "you'll never make any money."
That's clearly not a quick or easy solution! But if we in the public librar y treat art the way we treat book discussions and early literacy, perhaps w e can help do our part in nurturing young artists to pursue their passions.
Kiera
Kiera Parrott Head of Children's Services Darien Library, CT kparrott_at_darienlibrary.org Twitter: @libraryvoice
On May 15, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Nick Glass (TeachingBooks.net wrote:
This is a very important topic and conversation. Thanks for the space for i t, CCBC.
Thom Barthelmess gave a fantastic and most memorable talk at Carthage Colle ge last fall called "Caldecott Culture: Looking Back on their Diversity (or lack thereof)". He acknowledged at the beginning of his talk that his data was unofficial research, and not ready for publication. He categorized to the best of his ability the gender and race of all winners and honorees in the first 75 years of the Caldecottt, and knows that his data isn't fully a ccurate since he was identifying culture of individuals without their own s elf-identification. So please know that my notes below from his talk are b ased on unofficial research that Thom acknowledged was an early investigati on and not ready for publication.
That said, I found his presentation to be so revealing that I still have my notes.
322 medal and honor winners recognized for 310 medal and honor books
63% male
87% caucasian
He broke it up by 25-year-periods, and more women were recognized in the ea rly years.
The last medal or honoree who is not a caucasian man, caucasian women, or a frican american male was David Diaz in 1995.
12 times all the medalists and honorees were men. Only 2 times were all the medalists and honorees women.
He ended the presentation with questions about what to do with this informa tion. Lots of them. And the room was ablaze with conversation, as I'm sure this conversation will be.
Nick
_______
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 01:51:52 +0000
Colleen, Thanks for those stats. Yes, from a historical aspect, those numbers are im portant and make sense.
For the multicultural issues, it's also important to note that since the ye ar 2000, as the percentages of minorities continues to grow, there have bee n only 9 Caldecott winners and honor books illustrated by artists of color out of a total of 58 books. And 0 out of 10 the last 2 years.
I'm not saying future committees need to feel obligated to select multicult ural books based on percentages. It goes deeper - I believe it goes into as pects of cultural privilege/cultural backgrounds that whites have. Educatio n/awareness/acceptance of this for future committee members, as well as for all of us in the dominant group, is a beginning. Rob Reid
________________________________
From: Colleen Kelley
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:47 PM To: Kiera Parrott; Nick Glass (TeachingBooks.net) Cc: ccbc-net ccbc-net Subject: Re:
Caldecott at 75: Diversity (or lack their of)
I agree. And here is some perspective. If these numbers begin in 1938, when the first Caldecott was awarded, it is important to remember that in 1940, 89.8% of the US population was white (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_A merican). You can see in this table that in 1950 the percentage was 89.5, 1 960? 88.6%. In 1970, 87.5% of the US population was white. In 1980 it was 8 3.1%. In 1990, 80.3%. In 2000, 70.1%. And in 2010, 72.4%. Black Americans a re the largest racial minority, comprising 13% of the population (http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States). When you look back over such an expanse of time, I think you have to remember what these numbers represent historically and proportionately, and not simply look at numbers out of context.
Likewise with the representation of men and women. Women gained the right t o vote in 1920. In 1941, a disproportionate number of men to women went ove rseas until at least 1945. And the percentage of women to men in the workpl ace over this same time period is worth considering. However, "Why Don't Wo men Illustrators Win Caldecott Awards?" at http://rt19writers.blogspot.com/ 2012/01/why-dont-women-illustrators-win.html poses the question and lists a dditional links at the end of the discussion. According to "The First Ameri can Women Illustrators" (http://kidlitwhm.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-first-am erican-women-illustrators.html), a big problem with early female illustrato rs is that they left their careers to marry and raise families.
FYI: There are some interesting numbers at http://www.vidaweb.org/three-yea rs-to-stump-and-stack-and-stem that give a clear picture as far as adult bo oks go as to percentages of male and female who review and are reviewed for various publications. More information and discussion about this article c an be found here http://www.salon.com/2011/02/09/women_literary_publishing/ and here http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/04/research-male-writers -dominate-books-world, among others.
Colleen
Message-----
From: Kiera Parrott Sent: May 15, 2013 5:40 PM To: "Nick Glass (TeachingBooks.net)" Cc: ccbc-net ccbc-net Subject: Re:
Caldecott at 75: Diversity (or lack their of)
Hi everyone,
This is fascinating. Thom's question, "What do we do with this information? " is the central piece for me. Since the criteria only concerns itself with residency requirements for the illustrator (and since considering the gend er or ethnic background of the artist would actually be a violation of the terms of the criteria) then what can we do? (Besides creating more awards.)
Having recently gone through the selection experience, I can speak for myse lf (not my fellow committee members or past committees.) When I personally looked at books during my term, I was concerned with 1) eligibility and 2) how the art, design, and story held up to the criteria. Oftentimes I wouldn 't even look at the name of the author or illustrator until I wrote it in m y notes. For me, it was purely about the merits of the art.
That said, it does trouble me when I look at Thom's numbers. It would seem that the major awards are a reflection of the times and the culture in whic h they are chosen. If we want more award-winning picture books by more wome n and from a more diverse array of artists, I think we need to start at the very beginning. We need to begin valuing the arts again in schools. Childr en and young adults who have a talent & passion for art & design need to be nurtured. They need to be told that YES, you can have a career in the arts . So many kids (especially those in lower socio-economic spheres) are disco uraged from pursuing art as anything other than a hobby. There is a lot of misinformation about what it means to be a working artist or illustrator. K ids are told "that's not a real job" or "you'll never make any money."
That's clearly not a quick or easy solution! But if we in the public librar y treat art the way we treat book discussions and early literacy, perhaps w e can help do our part in nurturing young artists to pursue their passions.
Kiera
Kiera Parrott Head of Children's Services Darien Library, CT kparrott_at_darienlibrary.org Twitter: @libraryvoice
On May 15, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "Nick Glass (TeachingBooks.net wrote:
This is a very important topic and conversation. Thanks for the space for i t, CCBC.
Thom Barthelmess gave a fantastic and most memorable talk at Carthage Colle ge last fall called "Caldecott Culture: Looking Back on their Diversity (or lack thereof)". He acknowledged at the beginning of his talk that his data was unofficial research, and not ready for publication. He categorized to the best of his ability the gender and race of all winners and honorees in the first 75 years of the Caldecottt, and knows that his data isn't fully a ccurate since he was identifying culture of individuals without their own s elf-identification. So please know that my notes below from his talk are b ased on unofficial research that Thom acknowledged was an early investigati on and not ready for publication.
That said, I found his presentation to be so revealing that I still have my notes.
322 medal and honor winners recognized for 310 medal and honor books
63% male
87% caucasian
He broke it up by 25-year-periods, and more women were recognized in the ea rly years.
The last medal or honoree who is not a caucasian man, caucasian women, or a frican american male was David Diaz in 1995.
12 times all the medalists and honorees were men. Only 2 times were all the medalists and honorees women.
He ended the presentation with questions about what to do with this informa tion. Lots of them. And the room was ablaze with conversation, as I'm sure this conversation will be.
Nick
_______
---Received on Thu 16 May 2013 01:51:52 AM CDT
