Response to Inquiry about Connexions’ Editorial Policies

October 10, 1991

This letter was written in response to an inquiry about Connexions’ editorial policies, specifically regarding what we will publish, and from whom we do or do not accept submissions.

Here are Connexions’ replies to your questions in your September 20, 1991 letter regarding editorial policies:

1) We have no stipulations about who may or may not write articles. We do have stipulations about what we will publish. In other words, our guidelines relate to the content of the material, not the author.

2) We have no restrictions about who may write articles because Connexions is committed to promoting social justice, including the principle that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of their sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. We believe it would be inconsistent for us to promote these principles while simultaneously violating them ourselves. We also would not want to put ourselves in the position of trying to police whether an individual belongs to the ‘approved’ group or not.

We do have editorial policies outlining the kinds of material we will, or will not, publish. We will only publish materials which promote social change, ecology, feminism, etc. as we have (broadly) defined them. If an article meets our content guidelines, then we aren’t going to reject it on the basis of the author’s sex, race, etc.

When we solicit articles (as opposed to considering unsolicited articles which are sent to us) we normally tend to approach members of the group we are writing about. E.g. if we were seeking an article about proposed legislation to give benefits to same-sex couples, we would approach someone in the lesbian and gay communities; if we were doing an article about anti-Asian racism, we would approach someone in the Asian community, etc. However, we would publish a response to such an article even if it came from someone who was not lesbian, or Asian.

3) We have never refused to publish something because we felt the author was not ‘representative’. We do turn down submissions because we feel the content is inconsistent with our editorial guidelines (social justice, anti-racism, anti-sexism, ecological awareness, grassroots democracy, etc.)

Our criterion is: if the author has something worthwhile (informative, thought-provoking, etc.) to say about a topic, and their point of view is broadly consistent with our editorial guidelines, then we will consider their contribution for publication, even if we don’t necessarily agree with the point of view they express.

We do regularly turn down submissions which don’t fit in with our editorial guidelines. If we don’t think an article is consistent with the principles we are trying to promote, then we won’t print it. We do however go out of our way to encourage differing opinions within the broad principles we have laid down. Our standards for letters are generally more ‘liberal’, i.e. we are more likely to print a letter no one on the editorial collective likes than an article no one likes.

4) There has never been a formal challenge to our editorial policies from outside the collective (i.e. people have occasionally complained, but no one has challenged our right to set our policies as we see fit). People have cancelled their subscriptions because of pro-choice and pro-lesbian/gay materials we have run.

5) We have never applied for an exemption under the Human Rights Act.