,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
There are literally thousands of writers (maybe more) capable of writing a 10k word magazine feature, but you have to accept that some of those features will be different from what came before. That's why you have to open the door for real. insidehighered.com/blogs/just-vis…
I'm guessing Jeffrey Goldberg feels like he's getting unfairly criticized when the article in question is all about his attempts to diversify his magazine, but the passage that got so much attention reveals a persistent mythos that's best abandoned. 
Goldberg remains focused on bringing more people into the existing fold, but finding diverse voice for your publication or organization means accepting that those voices will change the very nature of your publication. My editorial experience says this is a good thing!
Guiding people who have been previously excluded to fit into the existing dynamic does little to change the existing dynamic which is what excluded them in the first place. Let new voices and perspectives in the door and allow for change. Longterm it's a benefit.
The folks at the top of these hierarchies are easily replaceable. (I make the same point about academia.) If you accept this, it's much easier to let underrepresented foks in. There's nothing special about the white dudes at the top. They've just had more opportunity.
So the notion that we need to help more non-white dudes be more like the white dudes is holding Goldberg back from his own stated goal. Let go the myth. Talent is everywhere and all most talent needs is a single chance.
I keep going back to the notion that overseeing a legacy publication warps the perception of the leaders in this way. It must feel like a responsibility to preserve the legacy, but I honestly think that thinking is for suckers. Publish good shit. The audience can keep up.
If anything, the legacy publication can withstand more experimentation because of that reputation and legacy. I'm not talking about blowing the magazine up, but diversifying the kinds of things that make the cover by diversifying who write them is an unalloyed good.
If I had the reins of a legacy publication and I wanted to diversify who writes my cover stories I would find those talented writers and say write 10k words and show it to me. This is a shorter route than inculcating them to the status quo. It also makes for better writing.
We don't need elaborate mentoring systems that help "bring more voices into the fold." We can instead change the fold itself so there's room for those voices as they are. I'll say it again; it's not complicated.
Keep gnawing on this. Efforts at diversity that basically boil down to white people mentoring not white people so the non white people can join the club until there's enough non white people to also do the mentoring seems inherently doomed. Just open the doors and let everyone in
