How to use this Page

It’s been just over a month since the results of our Diversity Baseline Survey came out, quantifying diversity among the book publishing workforce. Since then, we’ve been thrilled to see the many turns that this conversation has taken: different ways of considering the problem, different ways of interpreting the data, different solutions offered. Here are ten of our favorite responses that offer thoughtful commentary and ideas on how to look at the problem of diversity in publishing from a new angle:

1. Take Part: Don’t Blame White Guys for Publishing’s Diversity Problem

“’Just because you are a woman, that doesn’t make you an expert in the marginalization that people of color face or people with disabilities face,’ says Ehrlich. ‘Do not assume that because women are successful or are in positions of power that it means that success or power will automatically be offered out or shared with other marginalized groups.’

That sentiment is echoed by Tamara Winfrey Harris, the Indianapolis, Indiana–based author of The Sisters Are Alright: Changing the Broken Narrative of Black Women in America.

‘Straight, white, cis-women are as susceptible to bias as anyone else. Bias toward our own experiences is sadly human. And racism, sexism, and other ‘isms’ are sadly an ongoing feature of our society,’ says Winfrey Harris. ‘So, if we want the universe of books to reflect the rich diversity of humanity, then the publishing industry must proactively work toward looking like humanity rather than a privileged slice of it, as well as making a real effort to find and nurture projects by writers with varied backgrounds.’”

2. Slate: New Survey Confirms Straight White Women’s Domination of Publishing

“As Kait Howard, a publicist at Melville House, points out, male representation increases to 40 percent at the executive levels of publishing, suggesting that men and women are still being promoted at different rates. A Publisher’s Weekly survey last year also found that the pay gap persists, citing an average salary of $70,000 for men versus $51,000 for women. In other words, while white women have clearly amassed a great deal of power in publishing, that power is in many cases concentrated at the lower and middle levels of the ranks, suggesting it’s too soon to declare total hegemony. But the survey is an essential, depressing reminder of the extent to which the feminist movement has swept in new opportunities for primarily straight, white, and affluent women while excluding others, especially women of color.”

3. MPR News: Where are the Diverse Children’s Books?

“‘I think the biggest thing is: What is your comfort zone as an editor? What are the stories that you feel are your speciality? Your expertise — often it’s not going to be across race,’ de la Pena said. ‘With my case, in 2005, I had a Caucasian editor who said: ‘I want this book on my list.’ So she took a great risk.’

Dahlen said the issue extends further, into libraries. Librarians play a key role in deciding which books to stock and which to promote to readers, but librarians are still a ‘fairly homogenous’ group.

‘If we are a fairly homogenous profession, how do we know the books we are evaluating are or are not authentic?’ Dahlen said.”

4. Publishing Perspectives: Lee & Low: Diversity Is Not Created Equal

“Diversity does not mean that women should dominate, any more than it means that men should dominate. Diversity  means that we need to share power, share advantages, share opportunities and wages and respect and cultural development together. Parity, while it will always be elusive in its purest state, is the goal of actual diversity: hegemony for no one.”–Charlotte Abbott

5. The Toast: A Chat About Diversity in Publishing

“But there’s no ‘white guy shelf.’ There’s no ‘Lads Who Write About Gentrified Brooklyn’ shelf. And every author needs the space to write about things other than their identity moniker ascribed and recognized by wider society. We need to actively expunge the premise that the only [identity] writer on the list can write about [identity] and nothing else. I think this is a fundamental right for the life of a writer.”–Linda Z., Literary Agent

6. Brooklyn Magazine: “You Will Be Tokenized”: Speaking Out About the State of Diversity in Publishing

“I worked at a library and there are a lot of gatekeepers that are not those grumpy dudes from the Muppets. Everyone just needs to investigate themselves. White supremacy and the heteropatriarchy are pervasive. Even down to librarians and the people on residency committees: maybe at the top there’s a white man but there’s also a lot of white women. This is controversial to say but white women need to look at themselves. Equality can’t just stop when you get in. It can’t be trickle down. It feels that way. ‘Wait a minute when we get everything settled, then we’ll bring more of you up.’”—Angela Flournoy, novelist, The Turner House

“You will be tokenized. Even when you get to write about your own experience of being a minority in America—you know, even that can be turned against you. Are you going to be used later on as leverage against an accusation of racism? Will you then be seen as a collaborator? In most cases the answer is yes.

Hiring is a crucial step, but it is reformist. It’s not going to really fix anything, just sand off the rough edges, right? Because there is far more concern about appearing racist rather than not doing racist things. It’s not just a publishing thing. What else can I say but dismantle capitalism? And I don’t know that anything radical enough to do that wouldn’t hurt a lot of the people that we are trying to save. Barring world historical change, I don’t see really anything happening but a new paint job. It is systemic racism for a reason, it’s so essentially wound up with the system upon which everything is built. You can ameliorate it. You can palliate it. But you can’t cure it. This is what I sound like when I’m optimistic.” —Tony Tulathimutte, novelist, Private Citizens

7. Reading While White: Diversity in Reviews: Behind the Scenes with SLJ’s “Gatekeeper”

“Despite the challenges, we’ve seen some excellent progress. Anecdotally, I can tell you we’ve recruited over 150 new reviewers, many of them from a rich diversity of backgrounds. We’ve reached out to organizations like REFORMA and local chapters of the Black Caucus to recruit new reviewers. We created a website, forum, and a monthly newsletter for SLJ reviewers, which contains resources, training material, and best practices with a large focus on how to evaluate literature with an eye towards diversity and representation. We hold monthly online chats with our reviewers, often using those informal discussions as a way to talk about diversity and evaluation of literature. And, this summer, editor Shelley Diaz (recently promoted to lead the SLJ reviews team), will be organizing a free online course for reviewers centered on examining how we look at ‘diverse books,’ how we recognize our own blinders or prejudices when it comes to book evaluation, and how we clearly articulate both praise and criticism in professional reviews.” – Kiera Parrott, School Library Journal

8. Huffington Post: How White People Can Respond to Book Publishing’s Lack of Diversity

“People of color can effort all they can to get published and to change this industry, but the change has to come from within the dominating white culture first. White editors, agents, marketing teams, and executives have to be willing to admit that they might not know what’s best for audiences they don’t understand or are not identified with. These people also have to open their eyes. It’s probably too kind to say that the lack of diversity in this year’s Academy Awards nominations line-up is a result of blindness. Seeing this year’s sea of white nominees makes Jackson’s use of the word ‘stupidity’ somehow seem tame.”–Brooke Warner, President, She Writes Press

9. Salon.com: “Your manuscript is not a good fit”: How “we need diverse books” can move beyond wishful thinking

“But for too many writers of color, it’s a herculean task just to get into a crowded auditorium where just one of those men might be lecturing, let alone being able to publicly claim those five literary lights as your professional support system. Merely getting to the point where your writing consciously panders to those kind of men would represent a victory of sorts.  From the margins, the sound of writing sounds like nothing at all. You’re a mute in a black hole, hearing nothing but braying in your head.

The critique of institutional whiteness is everywhere now. However reluctantly, there is a growing awareness that it’s not just one professional venue but an entire cultural system that’s softly seeding doubt bombs in broody crevices where dark thoughts coalesce and swirl. A glass ceiling would be an improvement on this feeling of running everywhere into invisible electrical fences shrugged off as paranoid delusions by those who aren’t shocked every time they attempt pass through them. We regret that your manuscript is not a good fit. Of course we welcome the work of diverse writers, but please don’t revise and resubmit. We’re sorry, we already have one Black writer on our list. You’re Ojibwe? But we already have one Black writer on our list. How many times must I repeat this?”—Paula Young Lee

10. The Guardian: Publishing industry is overwhelmingly white and female, US study finds

“Farhana Shaikh from Leicester-based publisher Dahlia, which focuses on diverse writing, agreed. ‘It’s been evident for too long that the publishing industry is overwhelmingly white here in the UK,’ she said. ‘The fact that things are no different in the US is unsurprising. As publishers, writers and editors we seem to have embraced technology to champion new voices and build links globally – and yet, as an industry we’ve failed to recognise the talent and potential emerging from these diverse communities. The industry is in a state of flux, print sales are down, and yet globally, markets like India are thriving. It’s time to stop talking, and start investing in creating a more equal balanced workforce which reflects the modern, multicultural society we’re living in.'”

What are we missing? Share your favorite links with us in the comments.

Since its release, the Diversity Baseline Survey (DBS) has become the most visited blog post we have ever produced. The DBS has been widely read and written about, and has opened up a renewed interest in how to improve staff diversity in the publishing industry. In our first piece, Behind the Scenes of Publishing’s First Diversity Baseline Survey, we covered the methodology and obstacles we faced conducting the survey. In this piece we will shed light on what happens next—and what’s already happening to improve the numbers.

We surveyed a handful of the publishers and reviewer journals that participated in the DBS and asked them what initiatives they are planning or already have in place to make diversity a priority in their organizations. Here are some of the responses we received back:

Kiera Parrott, Reviews Director, School Library Journal and Library Journal: Participating in the survey was the first concrete and actionable thing I could do to be part of the solution. Even though I had a fair guess on the demographic makeup of our reviewers (most of them were recruited from ALSC committees, and that group is rather homogenous), I wanted actual numbers. My hope was that the statistics would help me pinpoint exactly where we needed to grow and develop.

The next steps after the survey have been 1) intentionally recruiting more diverse reviewers, and 2) developing diversity/cultural literacy training for our existing reviewers. Sometime in mid-2016, I’m launching a special course just for SLJ reviewers on diversity and cultural literacy. We anticipate this course beginning sometime in late Spring/early Summer.

Editorial note: Kiera also gives a much more detailed report on her progress diversifying her reviewer pool in an interview she gave at the Reading While White blog.

Jason Low, Publisher, Lee & Low Books: While many are aware of our 25-year mission to publish award-winning diverse books, we currently have several other initiatives in place.

To start, since the DBS was all about staff diversity, Lee & Low can firmly state that we practice what we preach. Lee & Low hires diversely and as a result our staff is very diverse. Overall 69% of our staff identifies as people of color (PoC). Departmentally the company breaks down like this: editorial: 50% PoC; marketing/publicity: 75% PoC; sales: 50% PoC; Operations: 100% PoC. We have fluent Spanish speakers in editorial, marketing/publicity, and sales.

Staff Diversity Training: Last year we sent a number of LEE & LOW staff members from different departments to an “Undoing Racism” workshop, held by the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond. We decided to do this workshop because even with LEE & LOW’s focus on diverse books, we felt that our staff would benefit from specific training in anti-racism concepts.

Author Award Contests: We sponsor two author awards for unpublished writers of color. Our New Voices Award is in its 17th year. The New Voices Award has launched the careers of 14 authors of color (with the work of three more authors currently in development), and we have given honor awards to another 11 authors. In 2013, we launched the New Visions Award, an award for unpublished authors of color who write middle grade and young adult novels.

Diversity in Publishing Internship: To address the lack of opportunities for diverse staff in publishing, we converted our paid internship program to one that is for diverse candidates only. Our internship program is designed to give candidates the kind of publishing experience and exposure they would need to consider a career in publishing.

Lee & Low and Friends Scholarship: In partnership with the Center for the Study of Children’s Literature at Simmons College, we have established a scholarship to increase diversity at the graduate school level. The Lee & Low and Friends Scholarship provides opportunities for students of color to enroll in the most prestigious children’s literature graduate program in the United States.

Diversity Gap Series: We published a series of eight studies that include statistics and interviews illustrating that the lack of diverse representation is a society-wide problem. The subjects covered so far: The Tony Awards, The Emmy Awards, The Academy Awards, The children’s book industry, The New York Times Top 10 Bestseller List, US politics, Sci-Fi and Fantasy Films, and Silicon Valley.

Angus Killick, Vice President/Associate Publisher, Macmillan Children’s Publishing Group and Monique Patterson, Editorial Director, Romance and Executive Editor, St. Martin’s Press: Macmillan established a Diversity & Inclusion Council this year aimed at promoting a broader representation of differences—gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, physical ability, age, gender identity and expression, family status, economic background and status, geographical background, and perspective in the workforce and the books we produce. The Council steers Macmillan’s diversity and inclusion efforts, and 1) determines priorities for programs and activities aimed at enhancing diversity in our books and authors and in our recruitment and retention efforts; 2) oversees sub-committees established to focus on individual priorities; 3) measures the results of our initiatives; and 4) reports back to the larger organization.

We’ve formed a number of sub-committees and each is involved in projects. For example, the Outreach Committee is creating a Publishing Ambassador Kit, so any employee can visit a middle or high school and talk about careers in publishing—not just in editorial, but in marketing, production, finance, IT. The Recruiting and Retention committee worked with We Need Diverse Books to expand our Intern pool this past summer and has expanded recruiting efforts to schools outside the tri-state area. The Acquisition and Marketing Committee is developing strategies for editors and imprints to broaden submissions both from the one-on-one meetings of editors and agents and from outreach to organizations such as the Asian American Writers Workshop or historically black colleges and their writing programs. Also, our Council is looking into participating in events such as the Harlem Book Fair and the LGBTQ Graphic Novels event. We have also reached out to the AAP and Young to Publishing to find ways to expand on what already exists. Macmillan joined other publishers in September in a baseline survey on our workforce and added several questions of its own to measure awareness and attitudes about Diversity and Inclusion.

We are in the early stages of exploring what will increase and sustain diversity in our books, our readership, and our workforce. We have much to learn, but look forward to continuing our efforts.

Vicky Smith, Children’s & Teen Editor, Kirkus Reviews: I’m not sure you can call an intention an initiative, but we are working hard to describe race and ethnicity accurately when we see it in the books that we review, as well as sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. We hope that by including that information in our reviews our readers will be able to make the most responsible purchasing decisions for their homes and libraries. I am also actively recruiting reviewers of diversity (for lack of a better term), who will provide a variety of lenses into the literature.

Paige Mcinerney, Vice President Human Resources, Penguin Random House: Our commitment to fostering diversity is reflected in our day-to-day workplace conduct, as well as by how we continue to find, develop, and publish a wide range of authors from many different cultural backgrounds, across all genres, for diverse audiences of readers everywhere.

At Penguin Random House, we have a robust, paid Internship Program. In recruitment for this program, we actively work with several diversity partners with whom we have longstanding and productive relationships. These include, among others, The Posse Foundation, Prep for Prep, and beginning in 2016, the United Negro College Fund in partnership with the Association of American Publishers. We work with these groups on all internship recruitment and also commit to filling a percentage of our internship openings with qualified candidates from these organizations.

Some of our divisions have employee groups that meet regularly to discuss how to maximize the potential of our diversity-related books, and how to make sure that their division is working toward as much inclusiveness as possible.

This spring, Penguin Young Readers is sponsoring (in a partnership with We Need Diverse Books) a writing contest that will award a publishing contract to a previously unpublished author who self-identifies as a person of color or non-Caucasian.

Karen Lotz, President and Publisher, Candlewick Press: As an independent publisher, we’ve always understood that it’s our authors and illustrators who set us apart. Our roster of creators includes new and established talents from all backgrounds who themselves are committed to ensuring that ALL readers will be able to see themselves and the people they love reflected in the pages of—and on the covers of—the books they read. On the corporate level, from the covers of the Candlewick advertising catalog to our featured titles at conventions and shows, we consistently and consciously make choices to feature characters from many different backgrounds; we choose to illustrate characters of different backgrounds not just in the ‘issues’ books but across the board, to better depict society as a whole. We hope this creates an open and inviting atmosphere where authors and artists from diverse populations will feel welcome to publish. We understand, furthermore, that the economic support and financial offers we make to artists and authors and the quality we invest in producing each and every title are important to attract all authors and artists, certainly including those from diverse backgrounds.

And finally, we are very proud of the recognition our books have come to receive from outside groups, including recent NAACP Image and Honor Awards; Stonewall Awards and Honors; Pura Belpré Awards and Honors; and Coretta Scott King Awards and Honors. We are particularly grateful this year to the Coretta Scott King Committee for their bestowal of the John Steptoe New Talent Award to Ekua Holmes for Voice of Freedom: Fannie Lou Hamer, because at Candlewick we really work very hard to try to discover new talent and give brand-new creators of children’s books a graceful and rewarding entry into the world of children’s publishing.

This same commitment to creating a welcoming environment extends to our staffing. In recruiting, we make every effort to reach out to educational institutions and organizations whose goal is to cater to diverse populations. We have a special art resource coordinator on staff whose role is exclusively dedicated to seeking new talent from art schools and programs; she communicates wherever she goes that Candlewick welcomes artists from diverse backgrounds and with diverse interests. Throughout their careers, we support and encourage all of our staff to continue their participation in diversity studies, panels, and educational programs, including the CBC’s diversity program efforts and other local and national opportunities, including WNDB initiatives. We support our authors when they wish to do the same. We also work very closely with First Book and Jumpstart, as well as other literacy organizations whose goals include getting high-quality and appropriately representational books into the hands of all children—regardless of their families’ compositions, backgrounds, or economic situations.

Marina Tristán, Assistant Director, Arte Público Press: We obviously work to promote Latino books and authors, but we also try to promote books by other minority writers and publishers via our social media pages and in conversations with teachers and librarians.

In regard to hiring, we don’t honestly have any initiatives per se in place, but we do have a very diverse staff—mostly Latino/Hispanic—because we feel it’s important to employ a bilingual/bicultural staff.

Learning from the UK
There’s no way for us to predict how the United States publishing industry will tackle the diversity problem and how successful these initiatives will be. But looking at efforts similar to our own is a useful exercise. The DBS has precedence in a publishing diversity study conducted in the United Kingdom in 2014. The United Kingdom study had a scope larger than the DBS. In the UK they surveyed 66 publishing companies of all sizes, 49 literary agencies, and 536 authors. They spoke with authors, publishing professionals, and Human Resources heads. Earlier this year, we wrote about 6 key findings from that study. Recently we reached out to Danuta Kean, one of the planners of the survey, and asked her about the status of their research.

“After the United Kingdom Survey concluded the findings were launched at the London Book Fair with a major press conference that was attended by over 100 people,” Danuta said. “Coverage in the national and trade press was extensive. All the major publishers expressed shock, but feedback among BAME authors and staff was very good: the report was true to their experiences and there was relief that it was being addressed in a hard-hitting manner. It has put diversity on the agenda.

“Spread the Word [the organization which created the study] has now met with HarperCollins and Penguin Random House and is establishing schemes to improve the situation with them. HarperCollins is the best: John Athanasiou, its head of people, has been a driver for change and asked me to present to the main board. He has also established a company-wide diversity forum and had a conference for staff to address issues raised in the report. The diversity firm, Equip, ran a poorly attended workshop at which I spoke. The feedback and enthusiasm was good, but I question the drive to bring about lasting change.

“Goldsmiths University held a diversity in the media day at which I presented our findings. Discussions have been held at three literary festivals, on national and digital radio, and diversity hashtags have been promoted on Twitter—the latest is #diversitydecember. Spread the Word also hosted a training and awareness day for BAME people interested in publishing and writing. More initiatives and meetings are planned for next year, and we raising funding for follow-up research.”

While the time and the scope of the survey did not allow us to document all inclusion initiatives, we encourage publishers, reviewers, and others to add commentary to the comments section below. What is your company or organization doing to address this problem?

Read also: Behind the Scenes Of Publishing’s First Diversity Baseline Survey and Where Is the Diversity in Publishing? The 2015 Diversity Baseline Survey Results

For press inquiries or permission to reprint, please contact hehrlich[at]leeandlow[dot]com.

By now it’s no secret that publishing suffers from a major lack of diversity problem. Thanks to years of research by the Cooperative Children’s Book Center, we have ample data to confirm what many readers have always suspected: the number of diverse books published each year over the past twenty years has been stuck in neutral, never exceeding, on average, 10 percent.

Countless panels, articles, and even conferences have been dedicated to exploring the causes and effects of this lack of diversity. Yet one key piece of the puzzle remained a question mark: diversity among publishing staff. While the lack of diversity among publishing staff was often spoken about, there was very little hard data about who exactly works in publishing.

At the beginning of 2015 we decided to conduct a survey to establish a baseline that would measure the amount of diversity among publishing staff. We believed in the power of hard numbers to illuminate a problem that can otherwise be dismissed or swept under the rug. We felt that having hard numbers released publicly would help publishers take ownership of the problem and increase accountability. We also felt that a baseline was needed to measure whether or not initiatives to increase diversity among publishing staff were actually working.

Our Diversity Baseline Survey took a year to complete. The results include responses from 8 review journals and 34 publishers of all sizes from across North America. Here are the results:

View a slideshow of the DBS survey results

Methodology and Response Rate
The Diversity Baseline Survey (DBS) was sent to 1,524 reviewer employees and 11,713 publishing employees for a total of 13,237 surveys deployed. The response rate was 25.8 percent. This is on par with the average for online surveys and actually a bit higher than the norm, given the sensitive nature of the questions.

In 2015, Publishers Weekly included some staff diversity questions in their annual Salary and Compensation Survey. They deployed their survey to 5,800 subscribers and had a response rate of 7.3 percent. Therefore, the DBS should yield a much more comprehensive picture of diversity in the publishing community.

The DBS was deployed directly from each publisher or review journal. A link was sent to all staff from a member of each publisher’s or reviewer journal’s human resources or executive team, often with an introduction explaining why the company was participating. Some companies even wanted to add additional questions to their surveys. The results provided here are only for questions that appeared in every survey.

The surveys were completely anonymous, and companies did not have direct access to the results. All data was analyzed and aggregated by Dr. Sarah Park Dahlen and Nicole Catlin of St. Catherine University in St. Paul, Minnesota, to ensure anonymity for individual employees.

Although our response rate was good, we still wonder: who didn’t take the survey, and how might that influence the results? With a survey of this kind, there is most likely some degree of selection bias. In other words, people who self-identify as diverse may have been more likely to take the survey. If that was the case, it would mean that our results portray publishing as more diverse than it actually is.

No voluntary survey can ever be 100 percent accurate, and no survey that asks questions about personal identity can ever be anything but voluntary. Even so, the results of the DBS offer a strong snapshot of the makeup of the publishing industry.

Notes and Analysis: What the Numbers Tell Us

Race:
According to the survey, just under 80 percent of publishing staff and review journal staff are white. The rest are comprised of Asians/Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders (7.2 percent), Hispanics/Latinos/Mexicans (5.5 percent), Black/African Americans (3.5 percent), and biracial/multiracial people (2.7 percent). Native Americans (0.5 percent), and Middle Easterners (0.8 percent) of publishing staff.

While all racial/ethnic minorities are underrepresented when compared to the general US population, the numbers show that some groups, such as Black/African Americans, are more severely underrepresented. This mirrors trends among children’s book authors. In 2014, just 2 percent of the books tracked by the Cooperative Children’s Book Center were by black authors. Latinos were similarly underrepresented in both places.

Creating the list of ethnicities for a survey such as this was a real challenge. The racial breakdown we offered was based on the US census, with a few adjustments. For our first survey, we felt that this was the best way to break things down because it presented familiar categories that respondents had seen before.

But no list can accurately depict the complexity of this question. Within each category, there are so many different groups, and people self-identify in a wide variety of ways. The census groups White Americans, European Americans, and Middle Eastern Americans together. The census is not quite sure what to do with Latino and Hispanic people, who may or may not identify as white. And it certainly does not know how to handle the differences among Asians, Pacific Islanders, and South Asians.

We received more than 50 write-in comments for this question from people who did not feel that any of the options offered adequately represented them. Some identified as Jewish or European instead of white. Many specified that they were South Asian and didn’t feel that the overall Asian category was specific enough. And several simply called themselves “Human” and wondered why we cared so much about this. One block of data was compromised when the survey link was shared with outside spammers, which made a portion of the surveys ineligible for inclusion. These incidents and answers are all telling because they allude to the wide scope of attitudes toward this issue and how deeply the question of race resonates with people, in both positive and negative ways.

Gender:
The survey reveals that publishing is about 78.2 percent women or cis-women and 20.6 percent men or cis-men. These numbers may help explain why some feel that children’s book publishing skews toward female readers. Among executive and board member positions this disparity evened out a bit, with approximately 40 percent of executives and board members identifying as men or cis-men. This reflects the reality that males still ascend to positions of power more often, even in female-dominated industries.

The gender question also reveals that about 98.7 percent of publishing staff identify as cis men or women. This means that they identify with the genders they were assigned at birth. How does this compare with the general population? We don’t really know. For many reasons, we don’t have a good count of the percentage of the general population that is transgender. That being said, the small number of transgender, gender-nonconforming, intersex, and other gender-fluid people in publishing points to the need for publishers to make sure that books on these topics are being examined for cultural and scientific accuracy by experts before they are published.

Sexual Orientation:
According to the survey, about 88.2 percent of publishing staff identify as straight or heterosexual. This may be the category in which publishing is most on par with the general population, though we can’t know for sure.

Beyond the labels we offered, many respondents added their own labels that they felt better represented them. Quite a few identified as “queer.” Others wanted to know why we were asking for such personal information at all. Overall, this question got one of the lowest response rates of the survey, an indication, perhaps, that many people did not feel comfortable sharing this information. We decided to include this question because we wanted to acknowledge this aspect of diversity, and if we didn’t include it, this segment of the workforce would remain uncounted and invisible.

Disability:
The survey reveals that about 7.6 percent of publishing staff identify as having a disability. We defined disability broadly in the survey, so this does not give us an indication of the types of disabilities that are represented.

One interesting result: when broken down by department, design had a significantly higher average rate of disability (18 percent), followed by book reviewers (12 percent). Perhaps this is because there are more freelance design and reviewer jobs that can be done from home even when mobility is limited. Providing opportunities to people with disabilities may be an underappreciated benefit of creating more freelance positions in publishing.

Department:
The DBS results offer the opportunity to filter responses by department, giving a better picture of how diversity breaks out throughout an organization. More than one hundred thirty people wrote in comments for this question, listing departments or sub-departments beyond those listed in the survey. Because the survey was administered to companies ranging from just a few employees to several hundred or more, some departments or roles were left out. The next version of the survey will have an expanded list that is more inclusive to account for some of the staff who had to write in departments this time around.

An interesting result was the high response rate from editorial staff, who made up nearly 20 percent of survey respondents. This compares to less than 10 percent of respondents from marketing/publicity and 13.5 percent from sales. Since these ratios do not seem to match the overall breakdown by departments in publishing, we wonder if staff in some departments, such as editorial, were more likely than others to respond. If so, why? Are editorial staffs more on board with diversity initiatives than staff in other departments?

Here are the numbers:

Board Members and Executive Positions
Without a doubt, board members and those in executive positions make up the highest level of decision makers on the corporate ladder. Board members and executive positions are: 86 percent white, 59 percent cis-women, 89 percent heterosexual, and 96 percent able bodied/without a disability.

Editorial
Editorial is the next most important department when it comes to the in-house staff closest to generating actual books. Editorial staff is: 82 percent white, 84 percent cis-women, 86 percent heterosexual, and 92 percent able bodied/without a disability.

Marketing and Publicity
These are the departments that promote the books. Staff members in marketing and publicity are: 77 percent white, 84 percent cis-women, 87 percent heterosexual, and 94 percent able bodied/without a disability.

Sales
Members of the sales team are the ones out there pounding the pavement and knocking on doors to sell front list and back list titles. Sales people are: 83 percent white, 77 percent cis-women, 90 percent heterosexual, and 94 percent able bodied/without a disability.

Reviewers
Reviewers often have a direct influence on what readers buy. Reviewers are: 89 percent white, 87 percent cis-women, 91 percent heterosexual, and 88 percent able bodied/without a disability.

What’s next?
Does the lack of diverse books closely correlate to the lack of diverse staff? The percentages, while not exact, are proportional to how the majority of books look nowadays—predominately white. Cultural fit would seem to be relevant here. Or at least in publishing’s case, what is at work is the tendency—conscious or unconscious—for executives, editors, marketers, sales people, and reviewers to work with, develop, and recommend books by and about people who are like them.

So, we have our baseline numbers. What are the next moves? In future posts we will discuss initiatives already in place that will hopefully move the needle toward more diversity. We will also look at a similar publishing diversity survey that was conducted in 2014 in the United Kingdom. And we will be working on designing DBS version 2.0, which we hope will include the publishers who either didn’t hear about the survey or opted out the first time.

We also hope that the DBS will lead to more “Diversity 102” conversations about what publishers can do, including improving retention and staff training. How can company cultures be more welcoming for diverse staff? Do diverse staff members feel comfortable voicing their opinions? Are systems in place to make sure all staff are trained and well versed in diversity issues?

Publishing is not alone when it comes to having a lack of diversity problem. All media, including film, television, and theater, are having similar conversations about diversity. It is plain to see that our society as a whole has a problem. We believe we are at a crucial time right now. We all have to decide if the country in which we live is better off if we conduct our lives separately or together. The diversity problem is not the responsibility of diverse people to solve. It is a problem for everyone to solve. Now that the Diversity Baseline Survey is completed, the real work toward changing the status quo begins. It is not going to be easy. Knowing where we stand and establishing a baseline was the first step. Knowing the baseline numbers gives us a way to measure progress going forward, but only our actions can change things for the better.

Read also: Behind the Scenes Of Publishing’s First Diversity Baseline Survey

For press inquiries or permission to reprint, please contact hehrlich[at]leeandlow[dot]com.

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 we will release the results of the Diversity Baseline Survey, the first major study to look at diversity among publishing industry staff. The Diversity Baseline Survey (DBS) focuses on four different aspects of diversity: race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. The goal is to establish a baseline that shows where we are now as an industry, and that will help us measure progress moving forward.

The DBS was inspired by a similar movement in the technology industry, led by Pinterest engineer Tracy Chou. Tracy pointed to tech’s lack of diversity—and lack of data—and was able to galvanize the entire industry to release staff diversity figures in 2014. We posted a study on our blog called The Diversity Gap in Silicon Valley that breaks down the problem and the responses. After the tech industry released their statistics, several new initiatives were announced to encourage recruitment and retaining of diverse new talent. We wondered, could publishing do the same?

Reviewers and Independents Lead the Charge

We began by discussing the idea of creating a baseline with people at a few major review journals. School Library Journal Editor Kiera Parrott was one of the first to say yes. “Since SLJ reviews over 6,000 materials every year, that puts us in a privileged and powerful position; our reviews help determine what books and materials librarians purchase—or not,” she said. “We are gatekeepers, of a sort. When Jason Low asked me what our reviewers looked like, in terms of their diversity, I had no idea. It was a question that had never been asked in SLJ’s more that 60-year history. Participating in the survey was the first concrete and actionable thing I could do to be part of the solution.”

Most of the reviewer journals we spoke to felt the same way as School Library Journal about the survey and promised their support. Eventually we lined up eight review journals that agreed to survey their reviewers.

We then started recruiting publishers. We approached small publishers first, for the simple reason that their hierarchy is not as deep and it was easier to communicate directly with decision makers. It is also worth noting that historically, small presses have a reputation for being strong supporters of diversity long before it became trendy. The reception was enthusiastic. Charlesbridge, an independent children’s book publisher, signed on immediately. “When we decided to participate in the DBS, we hoped to look at ourselves and at what we’re doing well and where we need work, as well as to join the ranks of people standing up and saying let’s embrace change,” said Donna Spurlock, Director of Marketing at Charlesbridge.

Arte Público Press also joined early on. “It’s pretty basic: the shockingly small number of children’s books published each year by (or even about) diverse authors. It seems clear that for those numbers to increase, there have to be diverse people working in publishing,” said Marina Tristán, Assistant Director at Arte Público. “And the first step towards making change is exposing the problem.”

Roadblocks Force Change

When we started approaching mid-size publishers, progress stalled. Many publishers flat out turned us down, concerned about transparency. Originally we had asked each publisher to release their own numbers, as many tech companies had. But many publishers felt that this could reflect poorly on their companies. HR representatives were also concerned with the content of the survey itself, which asked about some very personal things, including gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability. Many state laws prevent employers from asking their employees about these matters.

We considered setting aside gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability and focusing on race alone. But we felt that these aspects of diversity were also essential to a healthy and inclusive publishing ecosystem. While we understood the sensitive nature of the questions, eliminating these questions on the survey would render these diverse populations invisible. However, one thing became clear: if we wanted to measure these aspects of diversity, we would need to find a way to protect employee privacy and make sure that respondents’ answers remained absolutely anonymous.

We consulted with lawyers and evaluation specialists who helped us move to an aggregate model that would protect the privacy of individuals and ease the fears of Human Resources Directors. We hoped that even in aggregate form, study results would encourage a feeling of transparency and accountability in the industry. For the aggregate model to work, it was also imperative that actual data not reside with any individual publisher or reviewer. So we partnered with Dr. Sarah Park Dahlen at St. Catherine University in Minnesota, who took on the job of housing and administering the survey as well as parsing the data. Meanwhile, we solicited feedback from experts who helped us tweak the wording and format of the survey itself.

Mid-size Publishers Join In

Progress was slow. As we made updates, I circled back to publishers that had initially turned us down. Gradually the list of participants grew, and as the size of participating publishers got bigger, more publishers signed on. When Chronicle Books and Candlewick joined us, we knew we had hit a turning point. Emily Marchand, Vice President of Human Resources at Candlewick, said, “We think the survey is a great step in creating a snapshot of what is currently going on within our industry, and from that baseline of improved understanding, we believe we will all be better equipped to improve the diversity of both staffing and publishing across the industry as a whole. Deciding to complete the DBS was also consistent with our longstanding commitment as a publisher to attract and retain staff whose diverse viewpoints and perspectives will improve how our company and our publishing represent, reflect, and speak to all people.”

Big Publishers Show Support

As we worked, each objection raised helped us refine the survey, reasoning, and message. Over time, the vetting process became faster and easier. There were no longer any new questions, objections, or arguments that we had not faced before. The survey picked up some momentum when Scholastic joined. It made our day when Big-Five publisher Macmillan to joined us, followed by Penguin Random House. Paige McInerney, Vice President of Human Resources at Penguin Random House, said, “By participating in the DBS, we wanted to contribute to the industry’s efforts to be more transparent in this area. We also want to use it as an opportunity to continue the dialogue among all of us around how we can work together to find the most meaningful and productive ways forward. We know what our own company’s employment statistics are in some of the survey categories, and expect that the other participating companies’ results would closely mirror our own. We thought those combined results would be a good starting point for further discussions and actions by the publishing community.”

While we communicated directly with individual publishers, we also started a petition on change.org to try to garner public support for diverse books and diverse staffing in publishing. We felt it was important to give readers a space to weigh in. The petition received more than 2,000 signatures from all around the world, and the comments were especially moving to read.

All of the outreach was done one-on-one, via email and phone conversations. On our own we reached out to forty-seven publishers and nine reviewer journals. Articles were written about the survey in School Library Journal, Kirkus Reviews, The Horn Book, Book Riot, and Publishers Weekly. The distributor Publishers Group West lent a hand by inviting the one hundred ninety-two independent publishers they represent to participate, which brought in a few more publishing houses.

The Participants

In the end, 34 publishers and eight reviewers agreed to participate. The final list of companies provides a strong cross-section of the industry:

Review Journals
Bayviews
Booklist
Foreword Reviews
The Horn Book
Kirkus Reviews
Library Journal
Publishers Weekly
School Library Journal

Publishers 
Abrams
Albert Whitman
Annick Press
Arte Publico Press
Beacon Press
Bloomsbury Publishing
Candlewick Press
Capstone
Charlesbridge
Chronicle Books
Cinco Puntos Press
Clean Reads
Dancing Lemur Press, L.L.C.
Fitzhenry & Whiteside
Groundwood
Hachette Book Group
Holiday House
Just Us Books
Kids Can Press
Lee & Low Books
Lerner Publishing Group
Macmillan
Mango Media
Newfound
Owlkids Books
Peachtree Publishers
Penguin Random House
Pomelo Books
Sasquatch Books
Scholastic
Second Story Press
Tilbury House Publishers
Tradewind Books
Workman

The DBS was created in SurveyMonkey in an account to which only Dr. Dahlen had access. For most companies, Dr. Dahlen shared a link to the survey with one company representative who sent the link on to all staff. Employees were given two to three weeks to complete the survey, with at least one reminder. Because the survey was anonymous, it also had to be voluntary. But we encouraged survey distributors to include an introductory letter that would let employees know why the company was participating and encourage staff members to take the survey.

Before the survey was formalized in SurveyMonkey, some publishers and review journals conducted similar surveys on their own. In those cases, Dr. Dahlen worked to align their data to the Survey Monkey results. The data was parsed and aggregated by Dr. Dahlen and her graduate assistant, Nicole Catlin. Once it was in aggregate form, the data was passed on to us at Lee & Low so we could analyze the results further and release them publicly.

The survey took almost a year to complete from inception to finish. Stay tuned as we release the results on Tuesday, January 26, 2016.

Last month, we were excited to announce the establishment of the Lee & Low and Friends Scholarship in conjunction with Simmons College. This scholarship will provide opportunities for students of color to enroll in the Simmons College graduate program in children’s literature, one of the country’s finest.

In this interview, we talk to two of the key players behind the new scholarship. Cathryn M. Mercier, PhD is the Director of the Center for the Study of Children’s Literature at Simmons College and the director of the center’s M.A. and M.F.A. programs. Jason Low is the Publisher/Co-owner of LEE & LOW BOOKS.

Specifically, who will the scholarship help in terms of preparing for a career in publishing?

Cathryn M. Mercier: Our graduate programs attract students from a wide range of professional interests. They can be writers enrolled in an MFA program who are in graduate seminars with students intending to pursue careers as librarians or teachers; with students who want to pursue doctoral studies where they can focus on literature for young people; with reviewers or booksellers or rare book dealers; with others seeking careers in children’s book publishing – in editorial, marketing, design. The cross-professionalism of a graduate program in children’s literature that itself embraces the cross-disciplinarity and multi-vocality of the field appeals to students who share the belief that books change lives.

While there are always slight shifts in the student’s professional interests, the past ten years have seen a steady increase in the number of students wanting to enter publishing. Yet, we consistently find that doors to the field are very hard to open. Writers in the program find it difficult to get their work read by either editorial departments or by literary agents. As the competition to be read increases, writers of color struggle to find their way into publishing venues.

Similarly, internships – often operating as volunteer positions and once considered a version of career exploration – have become a necessary apprenticeship. Yet, many many students need to work during the summers; they simply cannot afford to take on a volunteer internship. Even a stipended internship might help to pay the rent, but it may not go much further than that.

First-generation college students – of which I am one – find it very hard to enter publishing partly because they just don’t “know the ropes” and need mentoring; and, again I speak from experience, they find it financially challenging to give up summer earnings for an internship when those earnings are needed elsewhere.

I do believe that this scholarship will make accessible a whole range of publishing arenas – writing, marketing, editing, agency, publicity – to students who have been otherwise disadvantaged, discouraged, or simply excluded from those fields. The scholarship might go to a student in the writing program to alleviate tuition costs; it might go to a student in the form of a stipend to support internship work; it might go to a student seeking to complete a nonfiction (or fiction!) manuscript and needing to complete research. Yes, I am looking at the scholarship as a way to diversify our student body and I hope that this opportunity for scholarship consideration will appeal to prospective students of color.

How will the scholarship help bring equity to publishing?

CMM: In one sense, this scholarship will first change the pipeline of those entering the study of literature for children and young adults. Our program’s commitment to diversity and inclusion means that all students are engaged in thinking about who is and is not included in literature; about the terms of inclusion; about the authority and authenticity of representations of diverse experiences. I mention this because equity comes from changing who works in publishing and from changing how anyone who works in publishing thinks about diversity and inclusion – of what they publish and to whom they sell what they publish.

Jason Low: If the scholarship can lessen the economic burden of obtaining an advanced degree from Simmons, we may be able to contribute to diversifying future publishing staffs. Simmons graduates go on to become librarians who influence collection development and serve on award committees. They also become reviewers who are the tastemakers of the industry. And many Simmons alumni become editors who are responsible for acquiring stories that may inspire children for generations to come. These are all key positions that make up the publishing ecosystem, and currently these roles are overwhelming white.

Cathryn, what gave you the idea to create a publishing scholarship?

CMM: Our program has a number of scholarships for students and students across the spectrum of professional careers as well as students from diverse backgrounds have always been considered for all scholarships. However, as I heard more and more students wanting to enter publishing, as I saw the need for more books by writers of color, and as I saw the movement from an internship as an optional experience to an apprenticeship, I became quite interested in addressing this specific set of needs. The program had an alumna who wanted to commit to increasing diversity in the student body and found motivation in the current student interest in publishing as well as the need to diversify publishing.

Cathryn, what are some of the challenges you faced in establishing this scholarship, and how did you overcome them?

CMM: The primary challenge was in getting to the goal of $100,000 so that the fund could be named. Again, we had an alumna donor wanting to make a significant gift and we had Lee & Low’s significant gift, but still we were not at the naming level. Naming is important for a whole range of reasons – not the last of which is that a named scholarship helps with recruitment and a student who is awarded a named scholarship gets to wear that banner throughout their career. Our alumna donor was so excited about the Lee & Low interest that she asked if we might be able to name the scholarship “Lee & Low…and Friends.” In addition, when she saw that we were close, but not close enough, she earmarked part of her gift as a challenge grant to the entire alumni body of the children’s literature programs. Within months, and through the generosity of many donors, we reached the goal.

Of course, we do hope that the fund will continue to grow. Just because we reached our goal does not mean that we’ve closed the book on this one! I know that a scholarship dedicated to diversifying our student body will continue to be a compelling one for alumni – and hopefully for others in publishing who wish to effect necessary change.

Why did Lee & Low Books partner with Simmons College to establish a scholarship?

JL: Inequality pervades almost every aspect of life, from the films and TV shows we watch, to the books we read, to the people we call our neighbors. To believe that the lack of representation in the workplace does not in some way greatly influence the kinds of books published and how they are marketed, sold, and reviewed is naïve at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

Since Lee & Low is an employer of people who work in publishing, we have seen a good many resumes come across our desks over the years. Many of the most qualified candidates went to Simmons College, so a partnership with Simmons represents an important piece of the puzzle.

Jason, why do you think it is the responsibility of publishers to offer opportunities like this? What would you say to other publishers who have been approached to help sponsor similar programs?

 JL: Quite simply the push has to come from publishers; they need to make a definitive statement that the industry wants to change. In the scheme of things, the Lee & Low and Friends Scholarship is just the beginning. For this scholarship to be successful, it has to grow and remain active for many consecutive years for it to make a dent in publishing’s diversity deficit. Lee & Low cannot do it alone. We need other publishers to step up and replicate this scholarship at other colleges with publishing and librarianship programs.

Recruitment is one key part of diversifying the industry; retainment is another. What steps does Simmons take to ensure that diverse students feel welcome at Simmons once they are accepted?

CMM: Graduate students attend orientation and School (we are in the School of Library and Information Science) has a wide range of student groups – many of them affinity groups – that students join. Nonetheless, a few days ago I met with the graduate program’s student advisory board to solicit their help and insight about increasing facets of diversity and inclusion throughout our graduate programs. They suggested extending the kind of mentoring work that we do with MFA candidates, thesis writers, and independent projects to diverse students. MFA, etc., students are placed with individual mentors to work on creative or scholarly projects. I’m interested in how we might develop such a mentoring program for diverse students.

What are some of the benefits for all students of a more diverse student body?

CMM: What aren’t the benefits? The best graduate seminar discussions come for the widest range of possible experiences and insights. Some of our assignments require collaboration, and successful collaboration means working within and across differences. In a graduate classroom, we look at the ways in which one’s culture matters in a book and to do that best, we need to have cultural diversity and multiple voices in all our conversations. The more diverse the student body, the more voices we have from all elements of our complex society, the better we become at unpacking our differences and shaping a shared future. 

Jason, how diverse is the staff of Lee & Low Books?

JL: Lee & Low is one of the few minority-owned publishers. Overall, our staff is reflective of this with 69% of our staff consisting of people of color.

What are some of the economic benefits of a more diverse work staff?

JL: Different perspectives help grow a business in ways that management could never predict or come up with on its own. Our staff is an integral part of what has helped Lee & Low become a stronger company and we value our staff by listening to them. Our diverse staff (in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender) puts Lee & Low in a unique position to act on a mission that has evolved. When Lee & Low was first founded in 1991, our mission was to publish multicultural books. Over time, we added stories with characters with disabilities and LGBTQAI themes. Who knows how the mission will expand next. Publishing books is a quietly passionate business. Having staff of all backgrounds who are deeply invested in diverse books matters. So are there economic benefits to hiring diversely? Yes, there are.

You have said that this scholarship is one way to address the “pipeline” problem in which publishers struggle to find qualified diverse candidates for positions. What are some other ways the industry can address this problem?

JL: When we are looking at entry-level candidates to hire, we often look for some relevant experience, usually in the form of publishing internships. Recently, we converted our internship program to accept diverse candidates only. We also made our internships paid, since many college kids cannot afford to serve in unpaid internships.

When publishers are looking to fill positions they may try to expand their search to colleges outside of their normal circles. Sending representatives to colleges to talk about careers in publishing is the kind of outreach that may be necessary to inform people that publishing is a rewarding career that is worth serious consideration. I have been to schools where students were unaware of our industry, but after I finished my presentation, they were interested.

Finally, once diverse staff is hired, mentorships should be provided. Being the only African American person in a department can be a challenge. Empathy and clear support from the top goes a long way. The only way the industry will become more diverse is by retaining the diverse candidates who decide to choose publishing as a career. Retention is crucial.

Exciting things have happened with the Diversity Baseline Survey since our last update!

The Diversity Baseline Survey gathers statistics on publishing staff and reviewers in four major categories:

1) Gender
2) Race/ethnicity
3) Sexual Orientation
4) Disability

These categories will be further broken down by department. The goal is to have all major review journals and publishers—from small, to mid-size, to large— participate in this project. If we are serious about trying to address the lack of diversity in the publishing world, this is the very first step we need to take. Sharing our numbers as an industry will not only clue us in to important patterns that may be missing, it will also show that we are committed to change.

Since our last update, several new publishers have joined the survey, including Bloomsbury, Lerner Publishing, Chronicle Books and Abrams. More small publishers have joined, including Clean Reads, Dancing Lemur Press, L.L.C., and Owlkids Books. Macmillan, one of the “big five” publishers, has also joined. You can see the full list here.

All in all, almost 30 publishers and 8 major review journals will be administering the survey. This is huge.

This week, a supporter created the hashtag #BigFiveSignOn to encourage more publishers to join the survey, including the rest of the “big five” publishers (HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Penguin Random House, and Hachette), in advance of the mid-September deadline. We were thrilled to see the hashtag trending on Monday! Check out some great media coverage of the campaign from around the web:

“Diversity Matters: Lee & Low Push for Diversity in the Publishing World” at BookRiot
“Diversity Survey Deadline Nears” at Publishers Weekly
“Why I’m Asking that the #BigFiveSignOn” at SC Write
“The Page is a Mirror…Or Is It?” at Jamie Ayres’ blog
“Why #Bigfivesignon? #WNDB” at Coloring Between the Lines

Over at Change.org, our petition encouraging publishers to join the survey is now at almost 1,900 signatures. Have you signed yet?

The deadline for joining the survey is September 15, 2015. Help us encourage remaining publishers to join by spreading the word on social media using hashtag #bigfivesignon and by signing the petition!

Read our previous update on the Diversity Baseline Survey.

Learn about why we are asking publishers to join our Diversity Baseline Survey.

Sign the Petition.

Several weeks ago I posted about why we’re asking publishers to join our Diversity Baseline Survey. If you missed that post, here’s a quick summary of the project:

The Diversity Baseline Survey we’ve proposed would be the first of its kind for US publishers. It involves creating statistics that do not yet exist by measuring staff diversity among publishers and review journals in four areas: gender, race, sexual orientation, and disability.

In short, we’re hoping that all publishers, from small to large, will opt in and encourage their staff to take our short survey. If they do, for the first time we’ll be able to see a clear picture of diversity among publishing staff.

Why Bother When We Know the Numbers Are Bad?

Having these numbers is the first step toward improving diversity because it will give us a starting number and a way to measure progress. While publishing is not usually a numbers-focused industry, if we are serious about attacking the lack of diversity among publishing staff it’s imperative that we take an analytical approach. Without baseline numbers, there’s no way to know if new initiatives in recruitment and retainment are actually changing the landscape. For many years, people were under the impression that diversity in books was increasing. When we released our 2014 study which looked at the numbers over a 20-year period, many people were shocked to see that, based on the numbers, the situation had not actually improved. This problem is too important to solve by just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. It’s time to commit to improvement through concrete actions that can be tracked.

Where We’re At

So far, the following publishers and review journals have agreed to be part of the survey:

Review Journals
Bayviews
Booklist
Foreword Reviews
Horn Book
Kirkus Reviews
Library Journal
Publishers Weekly
School Library Journal

Publishers
Albert Whitman
Annick Press
Arte Publico Press
Charlesbridge
Cinco Puntos Press
Fitzhenry & Whiteside
Groundwood
Holiday House
Just Us Books
Lee & Low Books
Peachtree Publishers
Pomelo Books
Sasquatch Books
Second Story Press
Tradewind Books

If you don’t see your publisher on the list, we encourage you to reach out to them and express your support for the project. Ultimately, everyone benefits when this survey is as comprehensive as possible. Send them here for more information on how to join.

Administering the Survey + Privacy Concerns

When we first announced this project, we got many responses from people who supported the idea but were concerned about employee privacy. We took that feedback to heart and have worked to make sure that privacy will never be put at risk. The survey will be administered by Dr. Sarah Park Dahlen of St. Catherine University. She and her team will be the ONLY people with access to survey results, so companies will not be able to view responses from their employees. Dr. Dahlen and her team will aggregate the results to share an overview of the industry that protects the privacy of individual respondents while still giving us a full picture of racial, gender, and disability diversity among publishing employees.

1,500 Petition Signatures 

To encourage more publishers to get on board, we created a Change.org petition for the survey. We’re thrilled to share that the petition already has over 1,500 signatures! If you haven’t taken a minute to sign yet, now’s the time.

What’s Next

Our immediate goal is to get the big publishers on board – without them, the statistics we’ll derive won’t be representative of the industry. Help us by spreading the word, signing the petition, and sharing. Together we can chip away at institutionalized discrimination and create a more diverse, healthier, alive-and-thriving book industry.