2) This post now being a week old, I’m going to close this comments thread; discussion can pick up where it left off in the comments at our new (Jan. 31) post here.

3) Some of the argument on this thread has been tending toward the personal and acrimonious. Both newcomers and longtime visitors are reminded that ours is a moderated comments section and I’m quite willing to start deleting posts if we can’t keep things on a constructive plane.

oh no David—-your white sheet and pointy hood are showing.

why don’t you stay on topic? this author writes a book with the expectation that it will be labeled and designed for the content written, and you perceive that as looking for “special attention to the black audience.”? if you really believe that, then you are a racially prejudice person, so just come out and own it. you don’t think minority races are entitled to equal treatment.

I’m stunned at the slimy defences sprouting up to excuse this type of discriminatory treatment, while the specific charges of this Penguin complaint are ignored.

a fictional work with no black characters is designed with a black cover and stamped as african-american fiction, and you find that acceptable because its author happens to be a minority?

I doubt you’d be saying that if she were white and had the same expectation. I think you’re talking nonsense and anybody who’s not behind a sheet can see that.

I’ve never heard of a white author being asked to change white characters to black –just so the book can be forced into that genre– or lose their book deals. I don’t see where Millenia Black asked for “special treatment” because she’s black. please show us where you see it.

You said this:

“I think some of our deepest social confusion and animosity springs not from “racism,” but, believe it or not, its presumptive opposite: the notion that race “does not exist,” that it is irrelevant, and that racial and ethnic groups and individuals are fungible goods, if you will.”

David, I believe it’s the US Constitution that says all men are created equal, and the context of it appears to be quite presumptive of what that meant. I believe it means exactly what you’ve been dancing around evasively.

Just in case you’re still confuse about what’s racism, go and read BM’s complaint and the answer to it, I’m told that it’s now made available. Then the stuff may well get defined there to you.

“All people are factually created equal by God, don’t try to change it.”

What facts support this assertion? Equal how? Everyone is equally tall, equally beautiful, equally adept at writing fiction? You can’t possibly mean that.

The handling of “Millenia Black” is a perfect example of the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t dilemma faced by many of those venturing to please minorities. Market her generally, and you’ve “failed to give special attention to the black audience.” Market her to a black audience, and you’ve “failed to treat her like anyone else.” I can think of a dozen other examples of this prickliness. How much longer can the patience for this last?

but the existence of the niche is not what is at play here. I see the Black case as being the fact that this author DID NOT write AFrican-American fiction. She wrote general fiction. If the pub. was looking for African-American fiction they bought the wrong book. now they’ve ghettoized the author forever to be known as an African-American fiction writer and limited to her own race for an audience. not too many white people over in the African-American section of the bookshelves.

you ask about other authors and lawsuits. How many bus arrests did you hear about before Rosa Parks? how many police beatings before Rodney King? the fact is that people endure injustice until someone brings it to the forefront. if you aren’t black you’re not likely to be aware until something like this happens and then you think it’s an isolated incident being blown out of proportion.

I’m not getting industry conspiracy from BSA. she’s saying that the author’s work was not allowed to be classified by the content and that can’t be allowed to happen. many black authors write African-American fiction and are fine with the label because African-Americans are their intended audience. clearly that is not so if Black went out of her way to write mainstream work. BSA is saying African-American authors should not be forced there because they are black. i’ve heard African-American authors saying they could never get away with writing non-black content. that’s what is expected of them. so I can imagine Millenia Black is challenging that status quo. why should her book be miss-labeled? it really is SO wrong.

BSA Pontif has tried over and over again to keep the focus where it belongs: on the allegations purported in the plaintiff’s complaint. But to no avail. The racially privileged prefer to conger as many speculations in side memoranda, steering away from the alleged wrongdoing of the complaint. How dim-witted can educated people be?

They’re too embarrassed I guess of the irrefutable allegations properly placed on this publisher. So the only thing they can do now to try and save face, is to engage in senseless dibble and dabble about an overpriced lawsuit devaluing the reprehensible allegation. Not about the fact that this publisher treated a minority author differently from white authors. No, their unaware minds can only assess that MB’s looking for publicity by suing her publisher and blackballing herself as an author. Since they believe it to be a business practice the publisher has a right to exercise, the amount MB’s asking for won’t matter at all in court. So what’s the fuss?

Isn’t this a simple thing to understand when you think of it? Consider the following:

I’d love to hear Mr. Petit opine on how this “best defense” aligns with 42 US 1981.

Let’s see if anyone rushing to defend Penguin’s right as a publisher to discriminate in this way will have the iron-savvy to do away with the empty and spurious sophistry about excessive demands, and cease fostering piles of excuses for raw, ostensive ethnic discrimination. Too dumb to understand it or what? Or do you just refuse to acknowledge that what Penguin did was wrong no matter what business strategy they use as defense of it? MB didn’t write AA fiction and therefore was discriminated against in how her book was handled because she is black, and no other reason.

All people are factually created equal by God, don’t try to change it.

Then why does the AA genre exist? If books so classified get less exposure than general fiction, then why do any of them get classified that way?

If some books’ fortunes are improved by being marketed under the AA genre, then this suit is about Penguin confusing this book for a book with a different subject, rather than purposely marginalizing it.

You seem to be alleging a general, industrywide practice of marginalizing black writers by putting their books in a classificatory ghetto. Can you name other books that this was done to, and will we be seeing lawsuits by their authors? Will there be a big class-action?

And why do book publishers hurt their bottom lines by discriminating against black authors?

I think some of our deepest social confusion and animosity springs not from “racism,” but, believe it or not, its presumptive opposite: the notion that race “does not exist,” that it is irrelevant, and that racial and ethnic groups and individuals are fungible goods, if you will. Because the reality on the ground is that they’re not. If segregation was distasteful, its replacement has been even worse.

Yet few dare point this out, for fear of being called “racist.”

On that note- You can go on, but I’m signing off on it here. I think enough’s been said on this for readers to evaluate and reach their own opinions.

-So “perceived” profit is justification for discriminating racially?

Yes. The company’s trying to make a profit, so it analzyes how the market it’s selling to works. If more books would be sold, and more profits made, by labeling book x “general” and book y “black” than by labeling both “general,” the company shouldn’t be legally liable. In general, for-profit companies should not be liable for maximizing their profit within the law (there being no law against putting some books into the “black interest” category).

Similarly, using the wrong business model and, because of predictive failure, not making optimal profits should not be grounds for lawsuits from anyone except maybe stockholders.

-Restaurants could attempt to build arguments that they think they’d make more money in their industry if they treated their white patrons differently than their black.

This is a different case. The restaurant, or public transportation, case is similar to the existence of “black interest” categories in the first place. The point is, the publishers aren’t originating the discrimination–the people who are originating the discrimination are those who are demanding a separate “black interest” category in the first place.

Given the existence of a “black interest” category, publishers should be allowed to put whatever they want into that category such that sales and profits are maximized. If you want to get rid of discrimination, eliminate the “black interest” category in its entirety.