CCBC-Net Archives
Re: Multiculturalism and the unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty (sigh)
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Christine Taylor-Butler <kansascitymom_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:32:15 -0600
Charles,
I did not misunderstand and my inclusion of that word was facetious. I've been following your prolific posts of lengthy statistics both here and on the Rutger's Listserv. I drew the statements directly from your own posts. In almost every case you respond to someone's counterpoint by dismissing it as "ineffective" or saying "it isn't what you want." You often end with troubling statements, including the implication that while you are applying "critical thinking" your peers on this discussion do not. So I hope you'll excuse me - one elite boarding school/IVY league grad data cruncher to another in returning the favor.
Here are a few of the many examples of your posts:
1. On Feb 17 you dismissed the experience of others on the list while inserting your own experience as valid by stating:
"As an aside, as a bookseller, I see white buyers and middle class buyers of any race, more interested in international stories than in domestic conformity literature – interpret that as you wish. The barrier is clearly not the issue of color per se or of differences in culture. "
2. On March 29 you wrote:
"The gap between demographics and the book buying populations arises because of differentials in the volume of book reading and book buying being done by the respective groups. The necessary corollary conclusion is that increased supply won’t do much if there is not increased demand. (Also see Richard Nash’s article What is the business of Literature? in which he observes that “Abundance, it turns out, is a much bigger problem to solve than scarcity”).
The fact that publishers are significantly oversupplying some groups and undersupplying others would seem to clear publishers of the charge of conscious or unconscious discrimination.
3. When I suggested that booksellers and librarians could find new sources of books by visiting less "marketed" authors and illustrators at a convention - a post that generated positive responses you responded with:
"I would like to offer an alternative perspective on the No “cost” way to support diversity. I think what is being suggested is probably counterproductive but there is a far more productive alternative that could be pursued. My experience is that no cost solutions are usually closely correlated with ineffective solutions."
4. On Feb 6, In arguing why CSK winners aren't included in other major awards you suggest that low numbers might lead to lower quality of content:
"That explains why the Caldecott and Newbery will always get more attention than any of the more specific prizes. Since both are relatively unrestricted, their average quality is statistically always going to be equal to or much higher than any specialized prize drawing from a smaller pool of candidates, just like the average athletic prowess in my home is statistically always going to at best be equal to but likely much lower than that of the state. "
…..end quotes…..
Do you see the trend? Our experience - even those of us who are ethnic - with the target audience is trumped by "your" experience as a white male bookseller whose own site provides little or no content written by or for people of color. So who are you to suggest there is or is not a need in the face of others who are asking? It's like saying there is no need for a specific brand of beverage because the underrepresented population is content to buy what is available already. Or because they don't drink beverages in large quantities (not knowing that the second is true because they detest the flavor).
Magic Johnson, in opening a theater in Harlem, introduced "red pop" and "hot dogs" - both popular with African Americans. And also something white cinema owners at the time didn't realize because they analyzed numbers and buying patterns of existing patrons rather than get to know the potential ones.
That, my dear, is known as a market opportunity. No different than a certain major greeting card company currently shutting down plants and putting people out of work because its "trusted" data dismissed the impact of the internet early on (despite the push from early adopters), the male CEO rejected the idea of marketing cards to men (49% of the population), and concluded People of Color didn't buy cards (based on focus group data in which those people were screened out as candidates for the panels) Now it's too late for them to play catch-up in the age of Twitter and Facebook and instant messaging.
I would ask you to consider that your attempt at "objective" analysis of the current state of multicultural publishing absent any real hands-on experience with the target consumer might be heavily influenced by "white privilege" Hence your statements show a consistent refusal to consider as valid any of the qualitative components implicit in your numbers. Numbers, absent information on who was polled, how, when or why are often misleading. Especially in light of such common knowledge that many people of color refuse to answer polls, are suspicious of them, or are not polled at all having been screened out of the sample. They are also influenced heavily by who is conducting or paying for the research (big Pharma is a great example of erroneous data and conclusions which lead to a poor outcome). Still, you have rejected out of hand real-world experience of people on CCBC - those people who actually work with the target audience (or ARE the audience) on a regular basis.
I understand that YOU want a thorough statistical analysis, but sometimes it is important to put numbers aside as they can be easily viewed through the wrong lens. As I looked at your background it is similar to mine - down to the elite boarding school beginnings and top IVY quality college. But I am a person of color who grew up and still lives among the target population in an urban area where 80+% of the population in the local public school district is a child of color and a large percentage qualify for free and reduced lunch. Even still - many of those children are searching for books about themselves. One librarian in Chicago even enticed children to read by allowing access to street-lit. I doubt your "numbers" reflect data points like that. Or that even in low literacy households, authors like Zane are popular among the women. Like many on CCBC I have seen the positive effects of presenting literature filled with faces that look like the child as it shapes their view of their place in the world from birth through college and beyond. While books are not the only influencer - media is a significant factor - it remains the most important as we prepare students to function in a multicultural setting such as the workplace or college.
You have the benefit of believing that race isn't a factor because the media predominantly presents your race as the "universal" standard.
Again - I've read your lengthy statistical posts on both this list and Rutgers. May I suggest now that you practice more "active" listening towards those of us who not only have real experience, but have had success in effecting change within that population. I suggest you put aside your data for some grass-roots involvement that will better broaden your lens.
In good health, Christine
On Feb 16, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Charles Bayless wrote:
> Christine,
>
> Well yes, you do misunderstand. Pretty comprehensively. You won’t find any of your statements in my comments. I think what I am doing is exactly what we say ought to be done – applying critical thinking to our beliefs in an epistemological fashion.
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 16:32:15 -0600
Charles,
I did not misunderstand and my inclusion of that word was facetious. I've been following your prolific posts of lengthy statistics both here and on the Rutger's Listserv. I drew the statements directly from your own posts. In almost every case you respond to someone's counterpoint by dismissing it as "ineffective" or saying "it isn't what you want." You often end with troubling statements, including the implication that while you are applying "critical thinking" your peers on this discussion do not. So I hope you'll excuse me - one elite boarding school/IVY league grad data cruncher to another in returning the favor.
Here are a few of the many examples of your posts:
1. On Feb 17 you dismissed the experience of others on the list while inserting your own experience as valid by stating:
"As an aside, as a bookseller, I see white buyers and middle class buyers of any race, more interested in international stories than in domestic conformity literature – interpret that as you wish. The barrier is clearly not the issue of color per se or of differences in culture. "
2. On March 29 you wrote:
"The gap between demographics and the book buying populations arises because of differentials in the volume of book reading and book buying being done by the respective groups. The necessary corollary conclusion is that increased supply won’t do much if there is not increased demand. (Also see Richard Nash’s article What is the business of Literature? in which he observes that “Abundance, it turns out, is a much bigger problem to solve than scarcity”).
The fact that publishers are significantly oversupplying some groups and undersupplying others would seem to clear publishers of the charge of conscious or unconscious discrimination.
3. When I suggested that booksellers and librarians could find new sources of books by visiting less "marketed" authors and illustrators at a convention - a post that generated positive responses you responded with:
"I would like to offer an alternative perspective on the No “cost” way to support diversity. I think what is being suggested is probably counterproductive but there is a far more productive alternative that could be pursued. My experience is that no cost solutions are usually closely correlated with ineffective solutions."
4. On Feb 6, In arguing why CSK winners aren't included in other major awards you suggest that low numbers might lead to lower quality of content:
"That explains why the Caldecott and Newbery will always get more attention than any of the more specific prizes. Since both are relatively unrestricted, their average quality is statistically always going to be equal to or much higher than any specialized prize drawing from a smaller pool of candidates, just like the average athletic prowess in my home is statistically always going to at best be equal to but likely much lower than that of the state. "
…..end quotes…..
Do you see the trend? Our experience - even those of us who are ethnic - with the target audience is trumped by "your" experience as a white male bookseller whose own site provides little or no content written by or for people of color. So who are you to suggest there is or is not a need in the face of others who are asking? It's like saying there is no need for a specific brand of beverage because the underrepresented population is content to buy what is available already. Or because they don't drink beverages in large quantities (not knowing that the second is true because they detest the flavor).
Magic Johnson, in opening a theater in Harlem, introduced "red pop" and "hot dogs" - both popular with African Americans. And also something white cinema owners at the time didn't realize because they analyzed numbers and buying patterns of existing patrons rather than get to know the potential ones.
That, my dear, is known as a market opportunity. No different than a certain major greeting card company currently shutting down plants and putting people out of work because its "trusted" data dismissed the impact of the internet early on (despite the push from early adopters), the male CEO rejected the idea of marketing cards to men (49% of the population), and concluded People of Color didn't buy cards (based on focus group data in which those people were screened out as candidates for the panels) Now it's too late for them to play catch-up in the age of Twitter and Facebook and instant messaging.
I would ask you to consider that your attempt at "objective" analysis of the current state of multicultural publishing absent any real hands-on experience with the target consumer might be heavily influenced by "white privilege" Hence your statements show a consistent refusal to consider as valid any of the qualitative components implicit in your numbers. Numbers, absent information on who was polled, how, when or why are often misleading. Especially in light of such common knowledge that many people of color refuse to answer polls, are suspicious of them, or are not polled at all having been screened out of the sample. They are also influenced heavily by who is conducting or paying for the research (big Pharma is a great example of erroneous data and conclusions which lead to a poor outcome). Still, you have rejected out of hand real-world experience of people on CCBC - those people who actually work with the target audience (or ARE the audience) on a regular basis.
I understand that YOU want a thorough statistical analysis, but sometimes it is important to put numbers aside as they can be easily viewed through the wrong lens. As I looked at your background it is similar to mine - down to the elite boarding school beginnings and top IVY quality college. But I am a person of color who grew up and still lives among the target population in an urban area where 80+% of the population in the local public school district is a child of color and a large percentage qualify for free and reduced lunch. Even still - many of those children are searching for books about themselves. One librarian in Chicago even enticed children to read by allowing access to street-lit. I doubt your "numbers" reflect data points like that. Or that even in low literacy households, authors like Zane are popular among the women. Like many on CCBC I have seen the positive effects of presenting literature filled with faces that look like the child as it shapes their view of their place in the world from birth through college and beyond. While books are not the only influencer - media is a significant factor - it remains the most important as we prepare students to function in a multicultural setting such as the workplace or college.
You have the benefit of believing that race isn't a factor because the media predominantly presents your race as the "universal" standard.
Again - I've read your lengthy statistical posts on both this list and Rutgers. May I suggest now that you practice more "active" listening towards those of us who not only have real experience, but have had success in effecting change within that population. I suggest you put aside your data for some grass-roots involvement that will better broaden your lens.
In good health, Christine
On Feb 16, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Charles Bayless wrote:
> Christine,
>
> Well yes, you do misunderstand. Pretty comprehensively. You won’t find any of your statements in my comments. I think what I am doing is exactly what we say ought to be done – applying critical thinking to our beliefs in an epistemological fashion.
---
You are currently subscribed to ccbc-net as: ccbc-archive_at_post.education.wisc.edu.
To post to the list, send message to: ccbc-net_at_lists.wisc.edu
To receive messages in digest format, send a message to...
ccbc-net-request_at_lists.wisc.edu
...and include only this command in the body of the message:
set ccbc-net digest
CCBC-Net Archives
The CCBC-Net archives are available to all CCBC-Net listserv members. The archives are organized by month and year. A list of discussion topics (including month/year) is available at http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/ccbcnet/archives.asp
To access the archives, go to:
http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/ccbc-net
and enter the following:
username: ccbc-net
password: Look4Posts
Received on Sun 16 Feb 2014 04:32:50 PM CST
