It takes only a simple Google search of the job title to find a laundry list of the most common concerns surrounding sensitivity readers. By just the second search result, The New York Times is asking whether the profession results in “better books, or censorship.” By the fourth, The Guardian is wondering much the same thing, calling sensitivity readers “publishing’s most polarising role.” Regardless of the controversial nature of the job, it’s undeniable that the use of sensitivity readers in the publishing process has become increasingly prevalent over the past several years. Still, given the somewhat recent emergence of the role, it’s natural that editors, publishers, and authors alike have some questions about who sensitivity readers are and what exactly it is that they do. It’s also predictable—given the current controversial nature of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across all industries—that there is significant opposition to the use of sensitivity readers.
Though they can also use other names—including authenticity reader, diversity reader, cultural consultant, or targeted beta reader—sensitivity reader is the most common title for the profession. Generally, these readers are (often freelance) editors who are hired when an author is writing about a character or characters whose backgrounds differ from their own, especially when the author is part of a dominant class and writing about a marginalized one.
Though some opposers to the emergence and use of sensitivity readers believe that the role is a direct reflection of “cancel culture” or a society that has become “too woke,” it is more accurately a result of an increased call for diverse books. As Renee Harleston, founder of the sensitivity reader consulting service Writing Diversely, says: “We’ve seen a cultural shift in awareness and a lower tolerance for misrepresentation, no representation, and incomplete or outdated representation in media.” As calls for these accurate and respectful representations have increased, the historically underrepresentative publishing industry has been forced to turn to outside help.
Arguments against the use of sensitivity readers vary significantly—from the exploitation of trauma, to the startlingly low pay rate, to the potential for allowing dominant voices to continue to speak over marginalized ones. However, many of these arguments relate far more to the overall state of the publishing industry than they do to sensitivity readers in particular. By and large, the publishing industry is still learning to appropriately value diverse voices. It is this lack of recognition and appreciation that leads to exploitation and low pay.
The most troubling argument against sensitivity readers, however, is that these editors are advocating for censorship and sanitization. Many who tout this line of thought point to classic works of literature which would not pass unedited through a sensitivity read today. They worry that reliance on sensitivity readers might “lead to sanitized books that tiptoe around difficult topics.” Others believe that the need for these readers arose exclusively from fear of society’s growing “cancel culture,” rather than any actual desire to prevent harm. Some, of course, take the issue even further, claiming that the profession is a side effect of “woke censorship” in an effort to suit a “liberal agenda.”
While the latter is certainly not one of them, there are many critiques of the sensitivity reading industry which are well established and in need of being addressed. However, these do not undermine the reality that sensitivity readers are critical contributors to the editing process. There is no backlash when historians are consulted on historical fiction written by authors without a history degree. There is no backlash when doctors are consulted on medical dramas written by authors with no medical experience. Why, then, is there backlash when a queer person is consulted on a queer book written by a straight author? When a Black person is consulted on a White author’s book about a Black main character? Sensitivity readers do not exist to censor authors or to assert that they cannot write the stories they want to write. They exist to make those stories more accurate, more respectful, and more inclusive.
Back Matter
Fact: Quote regarding whether sensitivity readers result in “better books, or censorship”
Fact: Quote calling sensitivity readers “publishing’s most polarizing role”
Fact: Quote from Renee Harleston on increased calls for diverse books
Fact: Some worry that sensitivity readers will result in sanitized stories
Fact: Some worry that sensitivity readers are a result of fear of being “cancelled” rather than any actual desire to create accurate and respectful stories
Source: https://rdcu.be/d7XXl
Fact: Some worry that sensitivity readers are a result of a “woke” culture