There is no witch hunt against author Kate Clanchy

The term ‘witch hunt’ has been used by some high-profile speakers and sections of the media to describe recent events involving writer Kate Clanchy – but it’s not her, or her defenders, who are being treated as witches in this context. the context.

No: People who were singled out and slammed following a racist row centered on Clanchy’s memoir in 2019, Some children I taught and what they taught me, are a Goodreads teacher and reviewer, Ceridwen; and three eminent British authors and teachers on structural racism and colonialism: Professor Sunny Singh, Chimene Suleyman and Monisha Rajesh. More recently, a fourth writer and teacher, Sandeep Parmar, has also had his work deconstructed by Clanchy.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the furor, which unfolded both on social media and in various sections of the media, here’s a look at what happened: Clanchy, a renowned teacher and writer , has written a book documenting her work in schools serving children of African, Asian, South Asian and Middle Eastern descent. Many of his students were refugees and immigrants.

The book was awarded the Orwell Prize in 2020, but since then it has been criticized – by highly respected authors, educators and critics in all colors – to contain racist and ableist stereotypes in some of its depictions of children.

Karl Knights, disability activist and autistic writer with ADHD and cerebral palsy, tweeted“So guys, I’ve finished reading Kate Clanchy’s book, Some Children I Taught and What They Taught Me. I passionately hated this book”; and Singh, Suleyman and Rajesh – three highly regarded scholars – quickly became vocal critics of the book. They said among themselves that they considered the text to be very problematic; that the language and perspective had too much in common with those used in the imperialist hagiographies used by eugenicists.

There was a bitter debate on the public forums; arguments about Clanchy’s language and also arguments against a woman’s public shaming – any women. Clanchy, in fact, flatly denied the accusations when they were first published on Goodreads, saying that “none of the terms” that had been flagged as reprehensible were in his book – a claim later proven to be false, as the terms were found in the text. She has since said she will rewrite the memoir.

Its dark materials author Philip Pullman came to Clanchy’s defense in a tweet (now deleted) in which he wrote that those who did not read a book before condemning it “would find a comfortable home in Isis or the Taliban”; although it later tweeted an apology for the hurt he caused, admitting his comment was a “mistake”. Lionel Shriver weighed in with the view that writers should “stand up to the language police” and warned that “cancelling writers will only spiral if we appease the purity fanatics”. It is here that the effects of power and privilege, and the resulting responsibility, become clearest.

Singh, Suleyman and Rajesh have spoken of the racist trauma and abuse they have suffered since – and they were backed by an open letter signed by more than 1,000 publishing industry figures.

Clanchy also spoke about the effects on her: she has given numerous recent interviews about how she “considered taking her own life” after receiving an email from her editor saying it was cutting ties with her in the row – although she now has a new editor who will publish her backlist, and her the original books are still selling.

The difference is that Clanchy was given increasingly wide space to express this and other perceived injustices – I counted 25 items this week alone. Singh, Suleyman and Rajesh continue to be quoted in these articles, in ways that are more harmful than beneficial, but have not provided with a similar remedy to respond. How can we turn a blind eye to their mental state?

And, one question I ask myself in the midst of it all is: if we are unable to use incidents like this for real change, will we ever evolve as a society?

In my opinion, it all comes down to language. One of the last articles I read in Clanchy’s defense described the situation as I said at the beginning of this article: as a witch hunt. It seems like a huge step backwards; nullifying any real good that may have happened since the situation erupted last summer. It does not bring social justice: it only refocuses the white woman in the narrative and uses language to generate sympathy.

So let’s be clear here. There is no witch hunt – Clanchy is not a persecuted woman burned at the stake. She is a British citizen, with roots and family here, who has done well. A privileged white woman working with children of color doesn’t have to be “naïve,” as has been described; or having prejudices of which she is not aware.

And while it’s unfortunate that Clanchy lost her first contract with her publisher, she’s still a mature professional, in a predominantly white industry. For every Clanchy, there’s a host of hard-working writers who couldn’t even dream of receiving contracts like the ones she received in the first place – let alone the chance to get their stories told in national media. .

Plus there are a myriad of people in the UK outraged Clanchy does extensive and far-reaching work for the children of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers who are not enjoying the privilege of having access to these children.

Naturally, for those of us who value freedom of speech – especially those of us who have emigrated from oppressive regimes – suppressing anyone’s voice is not to be taken lightly. But it must be weighed in the context of true social justice, course correction and reparation. When we consider the case of Clanchy, we must ask ourselves: is a member of the oppressed classes repressed? The answer is no.

To keep up to date with all the latest opinions and comments, sign up for our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter. click here

I would say this to those who are alarmed by Clanchy’s criticisms: no one attacks white people for their skin color or calls the intentions of all white people suspicious or racist. I know there are a lot of people – especially following the Black Lives Matter movement – ​​who are really trying to do better. As a member of the writing community, I myself have participated in conversations initiated by editors and publishers, seeking advice and guidance on how they can change. I have been published by white publishers and acknowledge their alliance, as do many authors of color.

What is under attack is the type of ideology and language that gives rise to racist abuse and gaslighting. We should unite against it – and call it out where we see examples of it, no matter how “well-meaning”. Language is a direct reflection of ideology, and that is why criticism of Clanchy’s work has centered on language.

To combat this, there is now a need to facilitate conversations with others in our communities; actively seek out and read books written by voices that have traditionally been suppressed. This means promoting books that have been written by authors who have actually went through hell to get these books to us. These books are themselves a form of resistance.

And above all, let’s give up using divisive language just to reinforce our own ideologies. Let’s avoid the expression “witch hunt”. We’re already in enough hot water as it is.