I think she's missing the point here. First she says:
> Every couple of years, someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about complains publicly that judging panels are picking books based on wokeness or diversity quotas or some other nonsense.
OK, so the judging panels are not picking books based on diversity quotas, cool. But then she admits that the longlists are subject to diversity quotas:
> It’s true that longlists don’t look like they used to. This might have to do with prize committees themselves finally diversifying, which means a broader variety of opinions and tastes. And it might have to do with all of us preferring books that, you know, do not sound like every other book we’ve read.
> It turns out that when we read broadly and fairly, it’s no longer true that 95% of prizes go to straight white men, go figure.
To be honest, I don't pay much attention to book prizes, but I'm well aware of claims that it's not just that "white men don't get 95% of prizes anymore" but rather that in some cases, white men are not included at all, despite making up a fairly large chunk of the population. For example, apparently no white men born in the last 40 years have published literary fiction in the New Yorker. [1]
Are there book prizes with similar track records? I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that whoever is deciding on publishing at the New Yorker is probably pretty similar to the people handing out book awards.
No, she's pointing out that when you have a dierse prize committee, you end up with more diverse results.
> For example, apparently no white men born in the last 40 years have published literary fiction in the New Yorker. [1]
How many writers under 40 have published literary fiction in the New Yorker to start with? New Yorker skews heavily toward more experienced writers, and the average age of debuts for fiction writers is already mid to late 30's. The pool of experienced writers under 40 is small.
Couple that with the New Yorker publishing a very small number of writers in total, and white men making up a minority of the possible pool of writers (New Yorker does not publish only American writers), is it actually surprising if you can't find any in the small subset of writers in the New Yorker under 40 that happens to belong in one specific group?
The New Yorker does publish a lot of white male writers - to make this into a thing, the young white male published writer who loves to publish writings about how young white male writers don't get published had to specifically point to a publication that publishes few young writers in general.
Not strictly speaking a quota, but they do say that they do look over their shortlists for diversity (of some unspecified kind) and that they never had to adjust their lists because of it.
That second part is presented as damning evidence that there's nothing like quotas - but all it really means is that they've fully internalized the requirements, whatever they were.
(It reminds me of Nate Silver's recent statement that Disney had almost never interfered in their editorial policy. Nate also thought that was a defense, even though what it really shows is that Disney was willing to interfere but almost never had reason to - Nate being almost perfectly aligned to their interests already.)
I don't know the exact process by which judges are picked, but it's not surprising that they should be so aligned on diversity and what kinds of diversity, just as they will be fairly aligned on ideas of what makes a book enjoyable or good.
It does not explicitly admit it, and seeing the quotes pulled separately make it harder to infer. But it's pretty clear when read in context that she's admitting that diversity is being factored into the longlists (which of course play a huge role in which books eventually win).
Are these quotas or just nudges? It's hard to say. But I've been in the room when decisions like this were made, by institutions that are legally barred from even considering race. But in reality, race wasn't just part of the decision, it was determinative.
> But it's pretty clear when read in context that she's admitting that diversity is being factored into the longlists
First it is not pretty clear, what is clear that long list is not composed of white male only.
> (which of course play a huge role in which books eventually win).
And second, this really come across as hidden "we should not be competing with them anyway" argument. Yes, if long list contains other people then just white males, it makes it more likely for those other people win. It makes super huge role, sure, but that is not something nefarious.
> Every couple of years, someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about complains publicly that judging panels are picking books based on wokeness or diversity quotas or some other nonsense.
OK, so the judging panels are not picking books based on diversity quotas, cool. But then she admits that the longlists are subject to diversity quotas:
> It’s true that longlists don’t look like they used to. This might have to do with prize committees themselves finally diversifying, which means a broader variety of opinions and tastes. And it might have to do with all of us preferring books that, you know, do not sound like every other book we’ve read.
> It turns out that when we read broadly and fairly, it’s no longer true that 95% of prizes go to straight white men, go figure.
To be honest, I don't pay much attention to book prizes, but I'm well aware of claims that it's not just that "white men don't get 95% of prizes anymore" but rather that in some cases, white men are not included at all, despite making up a fairly large chunk of the population. For example, apparently no white men born in the last 40 years have published literary fiction in the New Yorker. [1]
Are there book prizes with similar track records? I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that whoever is deciding on publishing at the New Yorker is probably pretty similar to the people handing out book awards.
1: https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-vanishing-white-male-...