In its November/December issue, "Poets & Writers" chose to omit a portion of my letter regarding the Academy of American Poets in which I described a concrete incidence of the Academy's past intransigence regarding poets of color. The very passage proving my point -- that the dialogue the Academy now touts had been broached by non-white writers before, to no avail – was excised, while Mssrs. Galassi and Wadsworth were given the opportunity to engage in precisely the kind of "destructive, polarizing rhetoric" and "demagoguery" they accuse me of. Their defensiveness speaks volumes: "Simply replace a word like 'pornography' with the word 'racism'", they write, likening my cry against racism among their chancellors to the right wing attacks on the NEA's alleged support of pornographic art. Is this just a clumsy effort to ingratiate themselves to the NEA, their major funding agency, or an attempt to discredit me by associating my call for more inclusiveness (it is a fact, after all, that the Academy's board of chancellors has never had a non-white member) with the distortions and fabrications of people like Jesse Helms?

I don't really mind playing the role of the messenger vilified for shouting the truth, as long as the whole affair results in positive changes. Earlier, more discreet endeavors to open a discussion about ethnic shortfalls within the Academy were simply ignored or suppressed. To repeat the story: A few years ago the African-American poet (and Academy member) Toi Derricotte wrote a letter to Academy president Jonathan Galassi, expressing her "simple concern" that there were no non-white poets represented among the chancellors. Mr. Galassi passed Ms. Derricotte's gentle complaint on to the twelve chancellors; three of them, W. S. Merwin as well as Carolyn Kizer and Maxine Kumin (both newly elected at the time), wrote back sympathetic "we're trying, but change is slow" notes, while Mr. Galassi emphasized that African Americans had received prizes from the Academy and been involved in other Academy-sponsored events. When Ms. Derricotte countered that a few prizes aren't enough, that poets of color need a chancellor to represent them, Mr. Galassi dismissed this irritation with a bland "thank you". That was the end of it, and the Academy's business continued without skipping a beat: Since then, four more white chancellors have been chosen to replace their retiring predecessors. Now, according to the Academy, these issues finally will be discussed, and an ad hoc committee will be formed to find "the most appropriate structures and procedures for governance in the 21st century".

Well, that's all I was trying to stir up -- first with my open letter to Stanley Kunitz and then, when that elicited nary a peep, with my essay in "International Quarterly". (That's called constructive criticism, by the way.) If people who have public responsibilities are deaf on one ear, you have to scream into the other; if they still stonewall, you may have to step on their feet. And don't be surprised if they fall all over themselves while accusing you of "hobbling" them, since, oh sweet coincidence, they'd just decided anyway it was high time to join the dance.

Fred Viebahn

Dear Fred Viebahn,

Thank you for your most recent letter. We, too, were happy to hear about the Academy's plans to institute an ad hoc committee to review their procedures for governance.

I wanted to assure you that we did not show your letter to the Academy. They wrote in response, I'm assuming, to our News article, of July/August 1998. As is our policy, we did give Kathleen Norris an opportunity to respond to your letter because we wanted to publish your letter, which directly addressed her letter of September/October 1998.

Having covered this subject for three issues in a row--first as a News article and subsequently in our Letters column--we, at this time, have no plans to publish any more letters on the subject.

Response of Fred Viebahn to Mary Gannon:

Dear Ms. Gannon,

Your response is not only disappointing but, in light of the way my letter was censored in your last edition, outrageous. To claim that letters to your magazine "may be edited for clarity" and then to delete the very passage proving my point -- that the dialogue the Academy now touts had been broached by non-white writers before, to no avail -- is an egregious act of hypocrisy. Furthermore, not allowing me the opportunity to respond to the Academy's rather personal attacks on me in your pages is the height of unfairness. It raises the suspicion that you are, at the very least, biased -- if not in collusion with the Academy.

I am still hopeful that you will change your decision and publish my letter in its revised form as attached below (reflecting your assurance that you did not show my letter to the Academy beforehand); otherwise, I see no recourse but to take the whole affair to a different journalistic level.

Sincerely,