I have been to three AWP Conferences (Austin '06, Denver '10, Chicago '12; weather kept me from D.C. '11), and, thanks to the genius and hard work of my brother and fellow-writer, Ahimsa Timoteo Bodhran, I've presented at two of these, while missing the third panel in D.C. Overall, I've found the Conference to be rather enjoyable and good for my writer spirit. Given that I often neglect the writer in me due to professional and other obligations, it is a blessing to spend several days with no other hat than that of a writer. Adding to the experience is the opportunity to connect with old friends, make new ones, and stalk a writer (or three) I admire.
Last night, I went to AWP's website and found the List of Accepted Events. I proceeded to do my research and was frankly surprised and a bit disillusioned by the small number of selected events that deal specifically or remotely on matters of queerness, gender-expansiveness, and race. Through some obsessive investigating, I found that 29 of the 516 events specifically reflect these identities and experiences. That's below 6% of all accepted proposals.
Of the 516 accepted proposals, only five* (1%) are specific to queer and/or gender-expansive identities and writing, and 27** (5%) are specific to communities of color. An additional five accepted proposals seem to include these identities and/or issues (in various degrees) as a part of their overall purpose.
Of course, I know that there are queers, gender-expansive folks, and/or people of color on panels that might not be about, or address, these experiences specifically. However, I personally gravitate toward those panels and events that are intentional and explicitly forthcoming about queers, the gender expansive, and people of color. While I applaud the integration of our communities into other panel opportunities, I continue to believe there is also value and need in creating spaces that are specific to, and intentional toward, our experiences and our values. Hosting a conference with a majority of women panelists is something to be proud of, but it isn't enough; it certainly does not guarantee inclusivity of queer/gender-expansive/women of color.
History has long shown that in spaces where queerness, gender-expansiveness, and race are not intentionally and explicitly brought to the forefront, non-queer, cisgendered, and non-people of color experiences and voices dominate or, more commonly, occupy entirely. Of the 94% of accepted proposals for AWP's 2013 Conference, I trust that the vast majority will either speak to our experiences tangentially or not at all. The latter being the most likely case.
Here's a quick breakdown of the number of panels specifically by, for, and about queers, the gender-expansive, and people of color:
LGB(T)Q, Trans, Genderqueer: 5*
Native, Indigenous, Aboriginal: 4
Black, African American: 5
Arab-Amarican: 1
Asian American: 3**
Caribbean: 1
Latina/o: 3
Chicana: 1*
Immigrant, People of Color Diasporas, Immigration-focus: 4**
Pan-People of Color: 5
I am left to wonder if AWP is demonstrating its (in)ability --or apathy-- to ensure queer, gender-expansive, people of color voices are demonstrably visible and heard. Perhaps this is a reflection of organizational values, or the effects of living in a world that is allegedly post-racial, seemingly increasingly post-queer, and hesitantly post-trans. Perhaps this is what it means to live in the aftermath of selective Gay Marriages, one Transgender Meeting at the White House, and the election of the first Black President. Or, maybe it's just another straight, cisgender, white organization doing that thing straight, cisgender, white organizations do.
Of one thing I am perfectly sure: 6% is an unacceptably low number for a conference taking place in the second decade of the 21st Century.
____________________________________
*One event is Lesbian and Chicana focused.
** One event is Asian American/Immigrant focused.
Here's a quick breakdown of the number of panels specifically by, for, and about queers, the gender-expansive, and people of color:
LGB(T)Q, Trans, Genderqueer: 5*
Native, Indigenous, Aboriginal: 4
Black, African American: 5
Arab-Amarican: 1
Asian American: 3**
Caribbean: 1
Latina/o: 3
Chicana: 1*
Immigrant, People of Color Diasporas, Immigration-focus: 4**
Pan-People of Color: 5
I am left to wonder if AWP is demonstrating its (in)ability --or apathy-- to ensure queer, gender-expansive, people of color voices are demonstrably visible and heard. Perhaps this is a reflection of organizational values, or the effects of living in a world that is allegedly post-racial, seemingly increasingly post-queer, and hesitantly post-trans. Perhaps this is what it means to live in the aftermath of selective Gay Marriages, one Transgender Meeting at the White House, and the election of the first Black President. Or, maybe it's just another straight, cisgender, white organization doing that thing straight, cisgender, white organizations do.
Of one thing I am perfectly sure: 6% is an unacceptably low number for a conference taking place in the second decade of the 21st Century.
____________________________________
*One event is Lesbian and Chicana focused.
** One event is Asian American/Immigrant focused.
Thanks for your thoughtful commentary, Lorenzo, and for bringing up an issue I’m certain many people are discussing today. Please keep in mind, though, that we can only accept from what we receive. Your post assumes that a large number of queer, gender-expansive, and people of color-focused proposals are submitted for consideration. The truth is, they aren’t. For instance, we received 12 LGBTQ-identified panel proposals this year, from which 5 you mention above were accepted. That's a 42% acceptance rate, which exceeds the overall 39% acceptance rate for all submissions. Also, remember that the conference committee is not a monolithic, unchanging body, but is instead formed anew every year to address, among other concerns, the very issues you’ve raised. We have committed ourselves to ensuring that the committee is actually more diverse in its demographics than those of the field. If we can, let’s expand the conversation by discussing how AWP's submission process can encourage greater participation from LGBTQ writers and writers of color, because that’s where we have the best chance of improving these numbers. I hope you'll join us in Boston to lend your voice to that effort.
ReplyDeleteAmber Withycombe
Director of Development, AWP
Thank you for the response, Amber. I appreciate that AWP has an expectation that people will be discussing the outcome of this year's round of acceptances. I'm afraid, however, that the response is one that organizations offer all too often. While I certainly understand the logic that it is not possible to accept proposals that are not submitted, I expect that organizations have learned something over the past several decades. That is, inclusion is not an something that can happen passively or in a vacuum.
DeleteThat queer/gender-expansive/people of color are not submitting in large enough numbers (though I'm curious as to what the submission rate for people of color is), is not something organizations like AWP can relinquish responsibility from entirely. Given the racist, heterosexist culture of the U.S. and the professional literary world, I, along with fellow queer, trans, folks of color, look to organizations like AWP to demonstrate its commitment to inclusion by taking steps toward addressing both the rate of submissions and its acceptance processes. Disengagement is not without context.
Of course, I understand that conference committees vary every year, but what efforts are taken to ensure the culture of the conference is examined yearly as well? The 42% acceptance rate of LGBTQ proposals over the 39% overall acceptance rate is not something I would offer as necessarily prideful. This country, the professional literary world, and AWP are not level playing fields for our communities. A 3% advantage hardly addresses the disproportionately minimal presence of LGBTQ events.
Using the LGBTQ acceptance rate as an example, I would hope that more than 65 proposals from communities of color were received. If not, I would hope that AWP would find it alarming and meriting immediate action that 5% of submissions were from communities who represent far, far more than 5% of the population.
I hope my critiques are not taken as aimless or gratuitously baleful. I do plan on attending AWP next year and look forward to the opportunities to dialogue with people on ways in which the AWP Conference can grow both in expanding possibilities for queer, gender-expansive, people of color, as well as its understanding of how this is can be accomplished.
On the contrary -- I take your critiques as productive and useful. And I hope you don't take my citing of our statistics as a defense, but rather as a starting point. We absolutely do not relinquish responsibility for being an inclusive organization, but I do think it's easy to single us out as a source of exclusion, rather than as a mechanism to address it. Our work, almost exclusively, is to support, advocate for, and reflect the field. We are a service organization, and as such our role is to amplify the discussions and work of our members. I do not deny that our selection of conference events plays a significant role in shaping conversations in the field, but those events are generated externally, by hundreds of writers who represent just as many viewpoints and influences. Who do we serve? How do we serve them? Those are substantial questions, and they're answered differently by each of our 35,000+ members.
ReplyDeleteThis is not meant to excuse us from tackling the hard work of shaping the conference culture from year to year, but a number of factors are in play. Each year, every panel scorer is given, at most, five out of fifteen modules to rank. Unlike a literary magazine, where an editor has the freedom to curate an issue holistically, each judge sees only a piece of the whole. And as you know from our submission handbook, we give absolute liberty to our judges in making their selections. We cannot, after the fact, change scores to arrive at an outcome we desire. Instead, we have to take steps to educate the next round of judges about where our members and attendees feel we’re lacking. So, any steps we take to address the culture of the conference, are, by nature, slow moving. One year influences the next.
Likewise, the sheer volume of mechanical labor that goes into producing the conference (by a staff of 3.5), coupled with our need to serve a hugely diverse group of people -- and I mean diverse in age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, region, profession, genre, aesthetics, even volume -- admittedly can diminish our ability to focus on advocacy. As can our need to consider other factors, such as "Will this composition of events attract the greatest number of people possible, and thus enable us to fund our next conference?" It's no small matter, assembling this gathering in a way that will guarantee its perpetuation. So, again, whom do we serve? And how do we serve them? In order to advocate properly, we need to better understand our members' needs. And to do that we need to create better ways for our members to communicate them. So please let's continue to talk about how we can do that.
Here's my own rant-letter (dealing with ethnicity and local) that I posted to a women's poetry group. I think there are MAJOR flaws in the AWP system when the percentage of LGBTO and writers of color are disproportionately represented.
ReplyDeleteIf not enough panel proposals are received (as AWP claims) then there is an issue in how panelists and panels are recruited since 3% LGBTO is hardly representative of those in attendance and the lack of panels dealing with writers of color is appalling.
Of course after reading this terrific post I realize my own "count" is off. I admit it was a quick scan. But I thought I would add my own voice to the comments here.
Millicent
So. AWP. It's that time again when the panels are revealed and the grumbling begins.
There appears to have been progress in the number of women panelists, from a low of one year's 30% to 58% in 2013.
And, I am probably going to get raked over the coals for this, but here goes.
OK. Deep breath.
What I find odd with the Accepted AWP panels for 2013, is the lack of diversity AND regional themes. In the past, AWP has embraced local culture, exploring the rich literary heritage of the cities where conferences are held. This was true in New Orleans, Chicago, New York, Albany. Kansas City, and Miami (long ago).
However, for 2013, it's lost.
Glancing at the list of panels, I did not see ANY about Boston landmarks, culture or especially, immigrant writing for which Boston is so well known! Boston being the first stop for many immigrants. Most recently from Haiti, Brazil, Portugal, Dominican Republic, Cape Verde. In fact, 1 out of every 8 in Boston is an immigrant, 56% of them from Latin America. Which means, to me, the AWP lineup should have included more diverse panels.
To host a conference in a particular city and to ignore the rich literary contribution of that area is ridiculous.
Here is a quick breakdown of topics mentioning ethnicity in the title or description:
1 Asian
1 Mexican
1 Cuban
3 Afro-American
Only 6 out of 516 topics? Am I missing something? Why on earth aren't there more multi-culti panels?
I welcome other opinions and discussion.