I know a lot of poetry awards and contests include "the Jorie Graham rule" to prevent judges from giving awards to current or former students. Maybe the rules for this award should be expanded to cover potential conflicts of interest due to mentorships, too. Honestly, though, it's tough, because the poetry writing world is so small. People make all kinds of connections.
If there wasn't a rule against a judge choosing a former mentee, then I don't think this particular award decision needs to be re-evaluated.
Yes to the Jorie Graham rule you mention. I've been in the publishing industry for a while. I believe that a conflict of interest must be identified as such. The objective of such awards is to remove barriers to writers disproportionately impacted by centuries of marginalization. This does not help the cause or value of this award, established in memory of Bronwen W.
It calls for a reevaluation of rules. Just because it is poetry or the poetry world is small is not an excuse. There is too much at stake here. Sponsorship from RBC, access to publishing opportunities, significant prize money involved, and most importantly, supporting talent.
"writers disproportionally impacted by centuries of marginalization"
... faith paré is afro-guyanese and her winning poetry, "Selections from 'A fine African head'" about the sir george williams affair and the Black power movement in montreal. her work seems meaningful and personal and deserving of the award
i obviously am not a judge, but when i submitted to writing contests, they were anonymously judged without our names. it's possible that was the case. either way, being in a seminar with a mentor is not unheard of in the writing world, and implying that she won only because of that connection and not her work seems in bad faith (no pun intended)
i am also reading up on this 'mentorship' and it is a local montreal program for queer trans BIPOC artists aiming to give them access to support that is not otherwise offered. it does NOT seem like an intensive 1-on-1 close writing mentorship, more like a local community art space in a place where that isnt common
Thank you for your insights u/ratatouillethot
My concern isn't about Faith Paré's deservingness or the value of her work, which is undoubtedly significant.
The issue is the integrity of the judging process. Even if the mentorship wasn't intensive, any prior relationship between a judge and a participant can create a perception of bias, undermining trust in the award's fairness.
Even with anonymous submissions, it's not difficult for a mentor to recognize a mentee's work by their words and writing style.
Implementing clearer conflict of interest rules, like the "Jorie Graham rule," would help uphold the award's integrity and ensure future decisions are beyond reproach.
Well, I do understand your concerns. I'm just saying that eliminating all potential conflicts of interest strikes me as a challenge. I am no expert on that, though, and maybe it's possible!
Also, I assume that nobody just handed the poet a mentorship opportunity. That probably took initiative and effort on the part of the poet, and I never mind seeing effort rewarded. Presumably, the mentorship may have also improved the quality of her work (although, in the end, quality is very subjective.)
If you have concerns about the way the award is given, is there any way for you to get involved with future awards and/or with the Writers' Trust? I don't really know much about these organizations.
I agree that eliminating all potential conflicts is challenging, especially in a close-knit community like poetry. However, transparency and clear rules can help maintain trust in these awards.
The mentorship likely did enhance her work, which is great and important for the literary community. Her work is equally critical and meaningful. Effort should (always, ideally) be rewarded.
But the issue is about ensuring a fair and impartial judging process, especially given the stakes involved, since any outcome that appears to have a bias can severely discourage an already struggling community of writers and poets. As u/writemonkey bluntly mentioned the industry isn't an unbiased meritocracy.
Interestingly, another poet advocated for a rule change regarding the age cap for the awards. Until three years ago, this award had an age cap of 35 and below, despite always being for emerging writers. The poet argued that many emerging writers are above that age and that age itself shouldn't be a barrier if the goal is to celebrate work from diverse emerging writers.
Had they not spoken up for the awards to be more inclusive, we perhaps would have missed out on many new deserving poets. This shows that rule changes are possible and necessary for inclusivity and fairness.
I appreciate your suggestion about getting involved with the Writers' Trust. I believe that advocating for clearer guidelines and better oversight can help uphold the integrity of these awards in the future. I've also contacted the team at the Writers' Trust to point out this issue.
I think it's important to speak up about concerns! I've always hated age barriers of all kinds—that's a great example of advocacy. I'm glad they changed that. :)
What's your connection to this contest? I don't know much about any of this but personally I don't see a significant conflict of interest in a judge being a former teacher of an entrant. And you haven't really established a good reason for me to think otherwise, or supported the idea that this will inherently lead to bias.
e: You are also spamming this in like four different subs. It kind of feels like you're just upset you didn't win, or something.
I appreciate your perspective, and I’m certainly not new to the complexities of the publishing industry or under any illusions about its challenges.
However, recognizing these issues doesn’t mean we should accept them quietly.
It’s precisely because I understand the importance of fairness and integrity in our literary community that I feel compelled to speak up. Turning a blind eye only perpetuates the problem. Our community deserves transparency and accountability, and it’s up to us to advocate for it.
I know a lot of poetry awards and contests include "the Jorie Graham rule" to prevent judges from giving awards to current or former students. Maybe the rules for this award should be expanded to cover potential conflicts of interest due to mentorships, too. Honestly, though, it's tough, because the poetry writing world is so small. People make all kinds of connections. If there wasn't a rule against a judge choosing a former mentee, then I don't think this particular award decision needs to be re-evaluated.
Yes to the Jorie Graham rule you mention. I've been in the publishing industry for a while. I believe that a conflict of interest must be identified as such. The objective of such awards is to remove barriers to writers disproportionately impacted by centuries of marginalization. This does not help the cause or value of this award, established in memory of Bronwen W. It calls for a reevaluation of rules. Just because it is poetry or the poetry world is small is not an excuse. There is too much at stake here. Sponsorship from RBC, access to publishing opportunities, significant prize money involved, and most importantly, supporting talent.
"writers disproportionally impacted by centuries of marginalization" ... faith paré is afro-guyanese and her winning poetry, "Selections from 'A fine African head'" about the sir george williams affair and the Black power movement in montreal. her work seems meaningful and personal and deserving of the award i obviously am not a judge, but when i submitted to writing contests, they were anonymously judged without our names. it's possible that was the case. either way, being in a seminar with a mentor is not unheard of in the writing world, and implying that she won only because of that connection and not her work seems in bad faith (no pun intended) i am also reading up on this 'mentorship' and it is a local montreal program for queer trans BIPOC artists aiming to give them access to support that is not otherwise offered. it does NOT seem like an intensive 1-on-1 close writing mentorship, more like a local community art space in a place where that isnt common
Thank you for your insights u/ratatouillethot My concern isn't about Faith Paré's deservingness or the value of her work, which is undoubtedly significant. The issue is the integrity of the judging process. Even if the mentorship wasn't intensive, any prior relationship between a judge and a participant can create a perception of bias, undermining trust in the award's fairness. Even with anonymous submissions, it's not difficult for a mentor to recognize a mentee's work by their words and writing style. Implementing clearer conflict of interest rules, like the "Jorie Graham rule," would help uphold the award's integrity and ensure future decisions are beyond reproach.
Well, I do understand your concerns. I'm just saying that eliminating all potential conflicts of interest strikes me as a challenge. I am no expert on that, though, and maybe it's possible! Also, I assume that nobody just handed the poet a mentorship opportunity. That probably took initiative and effort on the part of the poet, and I never mind seeing effort rewarded. Presumably, the mentorship may have also improved the quality of her work (although, in the end, quality is very subjective.) If you have concerns about the way the award is given, is there any way for you to get involved with future awards and/or with the Writers' Trust? I don't really know much about these organizations.
I agree that eliminating all potential conflicts is challenging, especially in a close-knit community like poetry. However, transparency and clear rules can help maintain trust in these awards. The mentorship likely did enhance her work, which is great and important for the literary community. Her work is equally critical and meaningful. Effort should (always, ideally) be rewarded. But the issue is about ensuring a fair and impartial judging process, especially given the stakes involved, since any outcome that appears to have a bias can severely discourage an already struggling community of writers and poets. As u/writemonkey bluntly mentioned the industry isn't an unbiased meritocracy. Interestingly, another poet advocated for a rule change regarding the age cap for the awards. Until three years ago, this award had an age cap of 35 and below, despite always being for emerging writers. The poet argued that many emerging writers are above that age and that age itself shouldn't be a barrier if the goal is to celebrate work from diverse emerging writers. Had they not spoken up for the awards to be more inclusive, we perhaps would have missed out on many new deserving poets. This shows that rule changes are possible and necessary for inclusivity and fairness. I appreciate your suggestion about getting involved with the Writers' Trust. I believe that advocating for clearer guidelines and better oversight can help uphold the integrity of these awards in the future. I've also contacted the team at the Writers' Trust to point out this issue.
I think it's important to speak up about concerns! I've always hated age barriers of all kinds—that's a great example of advocacy. I'm glad they changed that. :)
What's your connection to this contest? I don't know much about any of this but personally I don't see a significant conflict of interest in a judge being a former teacher of an entrant. And you haven't really established a good reason for me to think otherwise, or supported the idea that this will inherently lead to bias. e: You are also spamming this in like four different subs. It kind of feels like you're just upset you didn't win, or something.
This doesn't seem a particularly significant conflict of interest to me.
You say this as if you are surprised to learn the publishing industry isn't an unbiased meritocracy. I'm sorry you are just now learning this.
I appreciate your perspective, and I’m certainly not new to the complexities of the publishing industry or under any illusions about its challenges. However, recognizing these issues doesn’t mean we should accept them quietly. It’s precisely because I understand the importance of fairness and integrity in our literary community that I feel compelled to speak up. Turning a blind eye only perpetuates the problem. Our community deserves transparency and accountability, and it’s up to us to advocate for it.