I can't stop thinking about this article and what it says about the copyediting profession as a whole, because the editor in this instance is likely not the only person who would have made these particular edits. /1
https://christianminter.com/2020/12/11/a-case-study-on-anti-black-publishing-practices/

I've seen it before in group discussions - editors uncomfortable with the captilization their clients have chosen, because of their own ideas about what it signifies, or just concerns about consistency. They defer to style guides without taking into account the wider context. /2

And the context here is a paper on anti-Blackness, for crying out loud. If that's not a huge sign to you that you need to edit with sensitivity, what is? /3

The editor in question has acknowleged that she effed up and has learning to do in this area, and that's a good thing. (Of course, she should never have doubled down in the first place, and her superiors should have done way better.) /4

But how many of us are going to acknoweldge that we have learning to do too? Are we going to wait until someone is angry enough to call us out on approaches we may not even realise are harmful? /5

Or are we going to actively try to seek out more knowledge so we can avoid doing that harm? Are we going to make it clear to our colleagues, especially our white colleagues who have never even thought about this kind of thing before, that we all have work to do? /6

I'm seeing positive moves in publishing to challenge the default of whiteness by making space for new voices and stories. Do we risk undermining that if we can't acknowledge and challenge the whiteness in our corner of it too? /7

I don't know the answers to any of this. I don't know where to start or what to do. But I know we have a long way to go, as a profession, in our organisations, and as individuals, and we can start by really, truly recognising that. /end