# SFWA Hiring Guidelines Imply Editorial Censorship



## J-Sun (Feb 11, 2014)

SFWA President Endorses PC Bulletin Censorship @ tangentonline.com

I would dismiss this as a tempest in a tangent but look at the list of signatories! Benford, Brin, Cherryh, Ellison, Kress, McDevitt, Niven, Pournelle, Resnick, Silverberg, Spinrad, Steele, Wolfe and others.

I think the guidelines do look innocuous enough but it is true that some of it is put in there for very specific, non-innocuous reasons. And I do agree with Gould that "... your email is not a question. It's a polemic..." though I don't agree that it "confuses 'free speech' with the legitimate needs and aims of an organization's publications" - it would barely be possible to do that in extreme scenarios but the idea that a writer's organization does not have free speech as one of its "needs and aims" is ludicrously oxymoronic. So it looks like the SFWA tried to get away with something except that Truesdale was spoiling for a fight and the SFWA president unwisely showed carelessness and rudeness regarding a vital issue, so is hopefully not going to get away with it.

But this sort of thing illustrates exactly why the whole '"lady editors" and standard fantasy cover blowing up into a PC censorship crusade' shows the total dysfunction of the SFWA and of SFF writers in general. If I were a corporation trying to get writers to sign indentured servitude contracts, I'd be paying small sums of money to these PC people (and paying the next editor to put another lady on the cover) so that the SFWA would eat itself alive like it seems already bent on doing. If the SFWA is bent on removing any "content [which] alienates portions of our membership", what if the residue of censored pablum alienates most of the their membership by the very fact of its censored nature? Delete even that and do away with themselves, I reckon.

It's funny. Laugh.

IMO, the SFWA needs to embrace free speech, diversity in *all* its forms, and get back to the business of writing SF and making sure that it's properly compensated for by the corporations who make billions off of it.


----------



## alchemist (Feb 11, 2014)

My first thought was that constantly mentioning "political correctness" is the SFF community's equivalent of Godwinning an argument -- it's already lost if you have to resort to throwing the phrase around.


There's a middle ground here on Gould's contentious reply, which was ...



> "However, when content alienates portions of our membership it is =not= meeting the needs of our members or our organization and this is part of the equation the editor will be considering that when they look at articles, illustrations, and ads."



 They should not necessarily fear causing offence (there's always somebody, somewhere, looking for something to be offended by) but they should be cognisant of the possibility and assess the merits of the potential offence. And that is why some extra oversight is not necessarily bad. Perhaps if the nature and make-up of the "volunteers" (which does sound sinister. Who would volunteer for such a role?) and their terms of reference were better described, or even known, this wouldn't have become such an issue.


----------



## Ursa major (Feb 12, 2014)

I think the key bit (assuming it states the true position) is Steven Gould's sentence:





> Under the structure of SFWA (both old and new bylaws), the president is responsible for publications.


Gould, as president of the SFWA, appears to be the editor in chief. His are the First Amendment Rights, in this case. (Or perhaps not, given what NF has written below. )

He, while he's in post, can delegate authority to the editor, or to 'the editor assisted by "select volunteer and board members"'. He's chosen the latter, it seems.

What he cannot do is delegate responsibility**; given this, and given the recent history of Bulletin, he'd be a fool to let a sole (the editor) produce something that would cause serious offence to a large number of SFWA members without any warning before publication. (Basically, with a group of people, there's less likelihood*** for one person - the editor - to either go off on one, or to miss the significance of something they're about to put into the world in someone else's name. And any  member of the group can flag a problem to Gould, if necessary.)



** - It doesn't stop those in charge trying to do so, obviously.

*** - It doesn't mean it won't happen, of course. Groups can also become of one mind, to the exclusion of the views of outsiders.

.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 12, 2014)

This petition is incredibly silly. First, its author doesn't seem to understand the First Amendment--which is a legal protection against prosecution for speech. It does not apply to private organizations like the SFWA or their publications. I mean, try violating Facebook's terms & conditions, for god's sake--see what happens. 

Second, what exactly is the objection here? That there is an editorial board vetting what goes into the bulletin? Newsflash: there are editorial boards or ombudsmen/women at nearly all major media outlets, who are tasked with doing exactly what the SFWA editorial board has been tasked with doing:



> In addition to codes of ethics, many news organizations maintain an in-house Ombudsman  whose role is, in part, to keep news organizations honest and  accountable to the public. The ombudsman is intended to mediate in  conflicts stemming from internal and or external pressures, to maintain  accountability to the public for news reported, and to foster  self-criticism and to encourage adherence to both codified and  uncodified ethics and standards. This position may be the same or  similar to the public editor, though public editors also act as a liaison with readers and do not generally become members of the Organisation of News Ombudsmen.



Again, this is standard practice. 

So what else is there to object to? I think Silvia Moreno-Garcia sums it up best.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 12, 2014)

alchemist said:


> They should not necessarily fear causing offence (there's always somebody, somewhere, looking for something to be offended by) but they should be cognisant of the possibility and assess the merits of the potential offence. And that is why some extra oversight is not necessarily bad.



Nailed it.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 12, 2014)

Also, here is the SFWA President's reply in full:



> Over the past few days, there has been much public discussion about a  non-member’s petition to SFWA regarding oversight of our member  publication, the Bulletin.
> 
> 
> While this petition has not been formally presented to SFWA, I have  seen versions and they express concerns for something that does not and  will not exist:
> ...


----------



## J-Sun (Feb 12, 2014)

alchemist said:


> They should not necessarily fear causing offence (there's always somebody, somewhere, looking for something to be offended by) but they should be cognisant of the possibility and assess the merits of the potential offence. And that is why some extra oversight is not necessarily bad. Perhaps if the nature and make-up of the "volunteers" (which does sound sinister. Who would volunteer for such a role?) and their terms of reference were better described, or even known, this wouldn't have become such an issue.



So when are you running for President?  I agree that Gould could easily have made such reasonable and placatory clarifications but he chose not to. I don't know him but he seems to not have great political/diplomatic skills.



Nerds_feather said:


> This petition is incredibly silly.



That's what I was initially suspicious of. But, not to argue from authority, but when a list of authors like that think it's unsilly enough to sign, I think it bears a second look.



> First, its author doesn't seem to understand the First Amendment--which is a legal protection against prosecution for speech. It does not apply to private organizations like the SFWA or their publications. I mean, try violating Facebook's terms & conditions, for god's sake--see what happens.



This always drives me nuts, frankly. He's not making a *legal* argument but a *moral* one. The people didn't sign the petition because Gould is doing something illegal or in violation of terms, but because he's doing something stupid and wrong. People don't "sign up" for the SFWA as a corporate overlord like they do for Facebook, anyway - they *are* the SFWA and are expressing their disapproval of the President's actions.



Nerds_feather said:


> I think Silvia Moreno-Garcia sums it up best.



I think that's frankly foolish tripe of the most inflammatory and strawman variety and sums up nothing but a willful obtuseness designed only to mislead the unwary. It's, ahem, "offensive" to anyone who is upset over this issue in good faith over serious concerns of genuine respect and free thought and speech.


----------



## J-Sun (Feb 12, 2014)

Nerds_feather said:


> Also, here is the SFWA President's reply in full:



Right - again, why couldn't he have attempted such placatory clarification in the first place? Some of the authors who signed must have been worried enough by the vagueness and implications taking a wrong turn that perhaps the "public discussion" has encouraged crazy things like making the President affirm the SFWA's "opposition to censorship". So, if it had that effect - and what are now only words are followed through in action - it wasn't silly in that regard.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 12, 2014)

J-Sun said:


> This always drives me nuts, frankly. He's not making a *legal* argument but a *moral* one. The people didn't sign the petition because Gould is doing something illegal or in violation of terms, but because he's doing something stupid and wrong. People don't "sign up" for the SFWA as a corporate overlord like they do for Facebook, anyway - they *are* the SFWA and are expressing their disapproval of the President's actions.



Here is what the petition says: 



> SFWA should be the front line of defense for *First Amendment *issues.
> 
> The only issue here is a *First Amendment* issue...
> 
> It is our hope hope [sic] others will add their names to this call for SFWA President Steven Gould to kill any proposed advisory board or any other method designed to censor or *infringe on any SFWA member their First Amendment right to freedom of speech in the pages of the SFWA Bulletin*.


How is that not conflating the First Amendment right to free speech without threat of legal sanction by the government with the non-existent "right" to publish whatever you want in the private publication of a private association? 

And that's just one example of the petition's tiresome hyperbole. The reference to the SFWA's "fascistic approach to freedom of speech" was my favorite. I LOL'd at that. More than once. 



J-Sun said:


> I think that's frankly foolish tripe of the most inflammatory and strawman variety and sums up nothing but a willful obtuseness designed only to mislead the unwary. It's, ahem, "offensive" to anyone who is upset over this issue in good faith over serious concerns of genuine respect and free thought and speech.



She makes an incredibly good point: that the official publications of writers' associations should look professional and include items of professional interest to their professional constituents (a point, incidentally, that fits with part of your original post). She then shows how nearly every other writers' association does this without alienating large swaths of the constituency in the manner of the previous SFWA Bulletin. 

I fail to see where the strawman is, though your characterization "frankly foolish tripe of the most inflammatory and strawman variety and  sums up nothing but a willful obtuseness designed only to mislead the  unwary" does really capture my feelings about Truesdale's petition fairly well.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 12, 2014)

Also, as a comment on Natalie Luhrs' blog mentioned that the email that accompanied the petition, written by Robert Silverberg, included this gem:



> A bunch of us, including Messrs Ellison, Spinrad, Gene Wolfe, Resnick,  Malzberg, Benford, RS, etc., plus Nancy Kress, CJ Cherryh, Mercedes  Lackey, and others, thought that a writers’ organization *should not be  repealing the First Amendment* and have put together a petition objecting  to this review board.


It's rather breathtaking that the SFWA has been granted this kind of power.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 12, 2014)

J-Sun said:


> Right - again, why couldn't he have attempted such placatory clarification in the first place? Some of the authors who signed must have been worried enough by the vagueness and implications taking a wrong turn that perhaps the "public discussion" has encouraged crazy things like making the President affirm the SFWA's "opposition to censorship". So, if it had that effect - and what are now only words are followed through in action - it wasn't silly in that regard.



You can also say the same thing about the petition. Whatever point was in there got buried in all the hyperbole and LOlz.


----------



## J-Sun (Feb 14, 2014)

Nerds_feather said:


> Here is what the petition says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Nerds_feather said:


> Also, as a comment on Natalie Luhrs' blog mentioned that the email that accompanied the petition, written by Robert Silverberg, included this gem:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think juxtaposing those two quotes of yours casts each into relief. In the second, you cast it as humorous that the SFWA has the power to repeal the First Amendment , which relies on the idea that such a repeal is being used metaphorically. And that's how it's being used in the first. When the petitioners speak of their "First Amendment rights" they're using a rhetorical device to say "this is about free speech which is so important that it is written into our amended Constitution and, in defending it on land air and sea, we are defending that Constitution." It's the "slippery slope" rhetorical argument. If we let the SFWA do it here (where it's legally permissible but morally wrong) we may let others do it elsewhere (where it would be both). At least, that's how I see it and wouldn't be misled by the pseudo-legalistic emotive speech. It's not actually legalistic speech. (All sides will resort to rhetorical devices but at least this one touches on the true root of the problem.)



> She makes an incredibly good point: that the official publications of writers' associations should look professional and include items of professional interest to their professional constituents (a point, incidentally, that fits with part of your original post). She then shows how nearly every other writers' association does this without alienating large swaths of the constituency in the manner of the previous SFWA Bulletin.
> 
> I fail to see where the strawman is, though your characterization "frankly foolish tripe of the most inflammatory and strawman variety and  sums up nothing but a willful obtuseness designed only to mislead the  unwary" does really capture my feelings about Truesdale's petition fairly well.



Please understand that I'm taking issue with the blogger and not you and the following is a bit of rhetoric aimed at the blogger. I think we're cool. 

The point (and nothing but the point) of the SFWA's being a professional organization is valid. It is also easy to rebut that the professional publications that she provides illustrations for appear stupefyingly _boring_. That is certainly their right and is certainly often seen as an element of professionalism. But SF/F can and should be different in the nature of their professionalism. The artwork on the particular cover in question (which is part of the strawman I'll get to) is professional grade artwork that is colorful, arresting, and interesting. It may strike the given viewer as beautiful, wonderful, sexist, immature, or any number of other things, but "amateurish" is not one of the first things that is likely to occur to most people.

And leaving aside her one debate-worthy point, she refers to and quotes an obviously secondary and antagonistic source with preliminary material rather than what I take to be the primary source with the material everyone's actually signing and mischaracterizes an element of the former as one of the latter.

She then proceeds to accuse David Brin, CJ Cherryh, Nancy Kress, and Gene Wolfe of, and I most certainly quote, liking "Some Tits With [Their] Guild".

Following her down her path of misdirection, she "shows nude or semi-nude men are not that common in romance fiction". This implies they do exist. She goes on, "fallacy: romance novels feature lots of semi-nude men, therefore it is okay for us to display semi-nude women." First of all, I doubt that's the argument. Second, when did feminism become equated with puritanism and body shame? When Fabio is shirtless on a romance novel (however few there may be) men think "What a goof." but don't take to the net to have such covers banned because it threatens their masculinism. Presumably women (and some men, come to think of it) like it or they wouldn't make more than a cover or two like it. So big deal. And, to get very nitpicky, what is "semi-nude"? On the cover in question, she's more covered than many two-piece bathing suits that you'll see happily and voluntarily worn by women on any beach or by any pool and there's not even a question of anything being torn or any "actual nudity" being artfully obscured or anything. And so what if there were? And regarding the realism of "frostbite"? Yes, that's the implausibility - not the dead guy at her feet three times her size. Hey, it's the Science Fiction and _Fantasy_ Writers of America. Remember? Fantasy? And hey, that's right. Why are we doing studies of romance novel covers? We're supposed to be talking about fantasy. SF/F has a long tradition of BEMs and DIDs on the covers. It's retro and hip, geddit? And why are we talking about fantasy covers, anyway? The issue was editorial censorship and limitations of free thought and expression in the SFWA's organ of self-expression.

Whew. So now we're back from the strawman misdirection. It's not about "fighting the good fight. Ensuring you get your dose of tits." It *is* about "Contract rights? Territories? All that stuff that is actually useful for a working writer?" which the SFWA can't successfully pursue as long as it's embroiled in self-censorship wars at the behest of some vocal puritans. The argument is that writing requires freedom of expression. Let's allow such free expression. Then let's concentrate on contracts rights and so on.



Nerds_feather said:


> You can also say the same thing about the petition. Whatever point was in there got buried in all the hyperbole and LOlz.



Yeah, I absolutely agree with that - as I meant to indicate, the initial emails to the President and the petition overall wasn't handled as well as they might have been but they did seem to hit an issue that did get many esteemed and diverse authors on board as signatories. Hopefully it'll all work out. (And sorry about adding to the hyperbole and LOLz regarding the blog post but it felt necessary. There seems to be a template for those things. there are so many of them. )


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 14, 2014)

Just to clarify: is the person making the complaint the previous editor for the SFF bulletin - presumably removed after the last "sexism" controversy? And they are now claiming that because the SFWA no longer aims to directly offend many of its members, that therefore this is censorship?


----------



## J-Sun (Feb 14, 2014)

I said:


> Just to clarify: is the person making the complaint the previous editor for the SFF bulletin - presumably removed after the last "sexism" controversy?



No, but I can see where the confusion could arise. Truesdale is a previous editor but not the one who resigned lately. That, somewhat ironically, was Jean Rabe. But Rabe didn't directly say or do anything - she had to resign because she allowed a Resnick/Malzberg column and a cover (not sure who painted it) to be published which each offended a few vocal people. (I don't know Malzberg, Rabe, or the artist and can't claim to "know" Resnick but I can say that I've interacted with him and he's a great guy in my book. I know he's a great guy to many of the authors he's mentored and collaborated with as well.)



> And they are now claiming that because the SFWA no longer aims to directly offend many of its members, that therefore this is censorship?



It never aimed for that in the first place. But, yes, there are pointed elements of the hiring guidelines that imply that, among other things, the artwork had better be bland, the columns had better be dull, and that there may be some kind of non-editorial group of shadowy overseers ensuring that this is so. And, yes, that is the SFWA board's right until the next election. It's just that the author of the petition, the signatories (and myself) think it's a bad idea and we all apparently support everyone who thinks the editor should just be allowed to edit however they see fit.


----------



## HareBrain (Feb 14, 2014)

Dave Truesdale seems not to understand the difference between "offend" and "alienate". Or rather, had an interest in making one seem like the other.

And that cover was truly dreadful. If I were a Science Fiction Writer of America, I'd be offended by its implication that I had no imagination or brains, two things (in addition to dictionaries) surely important to such people.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 14, 2014)

I had been writing a long blog post, and then John Scalzi went and said everything I wanted to say much better than I could have.

The only thing I would add is that the petition is opposed to something that isn't and never was going to happen.

Also, just a as a historical point of reference, no one was fired or forced to resign over the cover of SFWA Bulletin #200. It was the subsequent Resnick/Malzberg article in SFWA Bulletin #202, which was in essence, an exercise in bridge-burning. Simply put, official publications of professional associations do not, as a rule, publish pieces that denigrate large portions of the association (in this case, repeatedly calling those who objected to the cover of #200 "liberal fascists"). There are venues for that kind of thing, but this was not one of them. 

Resnick and Malzberg may be nice people privately, and may be good writers (I wouldn't know), but they screwed the pooch on this one. Screwed their own pooch, I might say.


----------



## alchemist (Feb 14, 2014)

I agree with Scalzi too, but doesn't point 10 contravene that "tone argument" thing certain people complain about?  

(I totally agree with point 10, btw)


----------



## chopper (Feb 15, 2014)

for my money, the whole Truesdale thing is just men who wish it was still the 70s getting alarmed at the number of "lady writers" who talk back and (uh-oh) are actually better than them....

they can always go and start their own association (especially since Truesdale isn't a member of SFWA). I bet Vox Day would be happy to join them.


----------

