Freedom to Read Week is when we choose what to read, but who chooses what gets published?

How ironic is it, that in the push for "diversity and inclusivity" in publishing, targeted inclusion of particular author-groups creates less diversity? Have we merely changed the books we choose to ban?

Freedom To Read Week is more important as ever. It's wonderful to meet new characters on the pages of books and listen in on what they say to each other.

Who are they though? Which characters currently populate the new releases? Editorial policies are favouring some themes over others and some author identities over others, and while we are free to read whatever we want, book and periodical editors increasingly limit what's on offer.

A typical note on a publisher's submissions page will say: “We seek writing which challenges bigotry ... we showcase literature from de-centered voices.” One even asserts that “we reserve the right to de-platform writers if they have broken our non-discrimination values”.

De-platforming a writer means de-platforming the right of readers to choose to read that writer. In the scramble to exclude authors deemed overly privileged and insufficiently “racialized”, diversity in literature is being reduced. 

Readers' “freedom to read” only makes sense in tandem with authors' freedom to choose their subject matter, and with the likelihood of their finding editors who accept their perspectives. Otherwise literature is being distorted by publishers' fear of seeming to neglect “identity” causes. The situation is not surprising, of course, as no business can afford to be accused of mis-gendering or racism, but even a slight whiff of correctness lets an evil genie out of the bottle. Who has the right to correct the thought of others? It is not the role of cultural industries to be multi-departmental re-education camps.

No author wants to be condemned for standing on the wrong side of black, indigenous and BIPOC issues, and that opens the door to self-censorship. The pressure to self-censor in the interest of popularity, meaning in the interest of being accepted for publication, is a more subtle brake on intellectual freedom than were the overt forms of censorship which librarians and publishers fought against in the past.

Fashions in opinion change under the pressure of issues in every era. We in Canada claim our Constitutional right to read freely, but it's also worth considering who determines the availability of the material we wish freely to choose.