2018 School Spending Survey Report
Emily Jenkins Apologizes for “A Fine Dessert”
Describing her book as “racially insensitive,” author Emily Jenkins took to the web Sunday to apologize for her picture book A Fine Dessert, announcing her intent to donate her writing fee to We Need Diverse Books, which has been confirmed by the organization.
“As the author of A Fine Dessert, I have read this discussion and the others with care and attention,” Jenkins writes in her comment. “I have come to understand that my book, while intended to be inclusive and truthful and hopeful, is racially insensitive. I own that and am very sorry.” Jenkins commented on a October 31 “Reading While White post.” In it, contributor Megan Schliesman, addresses her coming to terms with the initial enthusiasm she felt for Jenkins’s book, transforming into a deeper understanding of how the images of the mother and daughter could “be seen as perpetuating painful imagery of ‘happy’ slaves,’” she wrote. Reaction to the Jenkins apology was immediate, with additional comments thanking the author for her courage and willingness to both listen to the criticism and act on it. A Fine Dessert has received multiple positive reviews, including this one from School Library Journal. The New York Times named the book to its recently announced Best Illustrated Children’s Books of 2015 list. Yet the book has met with other comments that questioned the choice to portray slavery as “unpleasant but not horrendous,” wrote librarian Elisa Gall on the blog "trybrary" in a post titled, “A Fine Dessert: Sweet Intentions, Sour Aftertaste.” Debbie Reese, editor and publisher of the "American Indians in Children’s Literature" blog, stated that the story “provides children with a glossy view of this country and its history that is, in short, a lie about that history.” Kathleen T. Horning, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Cooperative Children’s Book Center and a contributor to Reading While White, says that her organization highlighted the book on its website. But as Horning followed the ensuing discussion and criticism, “we began to reconsider our choice with that new information,” she says. “And frankly we were all embarrassed that we hadn’t noticed the problem ourselves which was the images of the happy slaves.” After seeing Jenkins’ apology, Horning says that she hopes the post would serve as a future model—not for every author to apologize, but to listen to the thoughts and comments of how their work is read, understood, and impacting readers around them. “I can see why people are still angry about this book,” she says. “I think what [Jenkins] did is laudable because she is listening to what people are saying.” 
Added To Cart
RELATED
RECOMMENDED
CAREERS
The job outlook in 2030: Librarians will be in demand
CAREERS
The job outlook in 2030: Librarians will be in demand
ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER? LOG IN
We are currently offering this content for free. Sign up now to activate your personal profile, where you can save articles for future viewing
ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER? LOG IN
Thank you for visiting.
We’ve noticed you are using a private browser. To continue, please log in or create an account.
Add Comment :-
Comment Policy:
Comment should not be empty !!!
Shalom2
I was a student of Emily Jenkins at NYU. On one hand, she’s a writing genius, but on the other hand she is “very” bitchy. She came across as pretentious, and even a little mean to a bunch of innocent freshman. I remember telling her I was elected class artist in high school, and her reaction was something along the lines of “what the f**ck is that?” It was really mean. She was trying so hard to be hip. She's certainly a cool chick, but sooo b*tchy. I don’t know if she was jealous of a me, pretty 18 year old, or if she came from a cold family (her pops is a playwright.) or went to Vasser College or what. I think this book is seriously detrimental in it’s portrayal of slavery. I hope Emily is "not" a racist, she did not seem that way, I mean we were at a totally liberal school. But I think it was kind of an overlook that she’s too smart to do. I’m glad she is donating the funds, because slavery isn’t a joy ride, honey. It’s the one blot in American history that still reeks of horror. The Russians have Lenin, and America had it’s slaves. It get that here were good times and bad times, but this story needs to wake up.Posted : May 02, 2016 05:14
Rodney Hamilton
For those who don't think it's possible a slavery mother never smiled at her beautiful child then consider this. Come and let me force you to do everything you don't want to do, such as work you from sun-up to past sundown, stand over you with a whip or board beating you for working too slowly or not "hard" enough. Let me take you and rape you whenever I feel like it. Let me take your daughter and do whatever I wish to her and then sale her away never to bee seen again. Let me take a family member of yours that has tried to escape and chop half their foot off, and then the next time, while I make your family watch, tie them to four horses and let them pull that family member apart. After I've done all of this then you tell me how happy you would be at any given point...smile at me then and let me know you're still happy!!Posted : Apr 07, 2016 01:03
Librarian
LoMarie...would it be okay to make A Fine Dessert w/ concentration camp victims smiling and hiding after making delicious Blackberry Fool for the commandant? No, it would be outrageous and disrespectful. But somehow, it's okay to excuse the same, with people of color? Egad. The defense of this is unbelievable. Can't you see the injustice? If not, maybe you don't want to see. The voices crying out? If not, maybe you don't want to hear it. That should tell you something.Posted : Jan 26, 2016 05:38
Robin C. Green
What is the publishers position? Scholastic just recalled A Birthday Cake for George Washington after being lambasted for racial insensitivity and historical inaccuracy. I understand the writer's apology. Any word from the publisher or illustrator?Posted : Jan 20, 2016 09:37
fca
Gee whiz, how could anyone think there was a problem here? I mean, the cover picture of a slave in 1810 has fairly white skin and pink cheeks, straight hair, thin lips, a tiny pointed nose and no breasts. If this was an accurate picture it would indicate she is the daughter of a rape victim. If the times are accurately represented, this means her father not only continued to rape her mother but also started to rape her, too, once she was 11 or 12 years old. Both she and her mother would have been whipped regularly by the rapist's wife for those circumstances as if they were responsible or had a choice. Unless, of course, her mother had been sent to work in the fields for the audacity of being a rape victim who compounded her offense by having a light skinned child. And, lets be real about the child with whom our heroine is smiling, that child will be raped by the man who is both her grandfather and possibly her father, any and all of her uncles without recourse when she becomes 11 or 12. Since it is 1810, this and all other depraved abuse will continue, without end, for her entire life and probably, for the entire lives of her children without relief or respite at the whim of lazy white trash abusers. Now, how anyone could possibly consider any of these things to be offensive is entirely beyond my compression.Posted : Jan 19, 2016 01:08
LoMarie
I can't believe I read someone imply it is an injustice to deny that slaves were happy sometimes. Jewish prisoners in concentration camps were too happy sometimes. What's the difference?Posted : Jan 17, 2016 06:42
Tracey Hughes
I have just learned about this book. I may try to find a copy to read, but admittedly, doing so has to take a back seat, because I've been busy trying to find two relatives of my 6th great grandmother, Saline Davidson. According to the will of the person who owned her (and at least ten other enslaved family members), two of the owner's daughters "Earch had a negro girl about nine or ten year of age as So much advancement after Marriages." Two children. Either two daughters of Saline, or a daughter and a sister of Saline. GIVEN AWAY AS WEDDING PRESENTS. And I'm highly doubtful that Grandma Saline smiled each time one of her relatives was given away, or sold away, or used as breeders for new crops of property in the early to mid-1800s. *This* was a lot closer to the reality of life for enslaved people. Even the fictional act of enjoyment in the book (eating some of the scraps of the dessert) was risky in real life; either of the enslaved "offenders" could have been beaten or even sold away, as punishment for not remembering what their "place" was. While I appreciate the author's apology, I'm curious to know if she considered the reality of enslavement before writing the book.Posted : Jan 17, 2016 05:49
Ray
Her apology proves her ignorance. It's not just racially insensitive, it is glorifying the enslavement of a mother and her child. That is wrong on a human level.Posted : Jan 17, 2016 11:30
Lori
It's not the image of a slave woman smiling at her daughter that many find offensive but the whole premise of the book. A mother and daughter slave happily go along picking blackberries (are they forced to pick these blackberries? They ARE slaves). Then they happily make the dessert for their MASTERS and SERVE them. Afterwards they have to HIDE in a cupboard just to lick the scraps...and they are happy about that! If the author really wanted to depict community she could have done a little bit of research and discovered that enslaved Africans in the U.S. eventually created their own culture and maybe she could have shown the relationship between a mother and daughter in that context instead of happily being subservient to their white masters.Posted : Jan 16, 2016 11:41
Michelle LaValley
I am the descendent of American black slaves. Has anyone commenting on this book researched American slavery? Taken an interest in black people's history from Ancient Africa to the present? That question aside. Can you, as a human being, imagine being held captive and available for rape, verbal and physical violence 24 hours a day. Watching helplessly as your children are subjected to the same, not allowed to behave a normal children do? You cannot protect them, you cannot protect yourself. If they are not taken and sold from you, you get to watch whatever your captor wants to do or say to them. You are not clothed properly, you have no shoes. You never have enough to eat never mind to feed your children. And when your children eat, while you are working, which is from awakening to late at night, your children are fed from a trough, like pigs eat from. That is the reality of captivity. That was the reality of an enslaved mother and her children. If there were smiles, it was at night , while the captors slept. You could not look them in the eye. You could not be yourself and I guarantee you, yourself would be stressed to the max. This book is an insult to that very real suffering. At least research the subject before daring to write about lives you have absolutely no frame of reference to.Posted : Jan 14, 2016 08:17
Maxine Shaw
There is something amusing - and familiar - about watching a bunch of white people passionately defend the right to depict smiling, happy slaves. And that's fine (and predictable). But when you force these images on children under the guise of "slaves were happy sometimes!", then it becomes propaganda. There's a reason why white people - and white librarians in particular - love feeding this book to children so much.Posted : Nov 30, 2015 07:17
Casey Crowe
After reading all the commentary; I've decided to go order the book - and use the opportunity as a "teachable moment" when our 4th graders come to the topic of slavery in Social Studies this year. I'll share the points of view expressed here and have them weigh in with their opinions. Should encourage some of those "higher level thinking skills" we keep hearing about.Posted : Nov 11, 2015 02:48
Mike Jung
I'm glad that Emily Jenkins apologized like this - unreservedly, with vulnerability, and without defensiveness or rancor. She made the effort to understand and then articulate the reality that her perspective is neither the only important nor the most important perspective, and that the concerns and objections put forth by so many Black voices are not invalidated by the fact that she didn't anticipate them. I don't know Ms. Jenkins, but I don't have any reason to believe she didn't make this decision 100% of her own volition. We've seen defensive, self-protective reactions to criticism over and over and over again; this is different. This is acknowledgment that's too rarely given, and accountability that's too rarely practiced. It would be wildly overstating things to say it makes Ms. Jenkins a hero, but I think it means she's willing to fully engage with critical responses instead of negating them, and that is something we need very, very badly.Posted : Nov 05, 2015 06:51
Sarah
I'm not sure that "crusade" is really an impovement. Nor is your second presentation of the facts. From Ellen Oh, head of WNDB: "My thoughts on Fine Dessert-- it's a beautiful book that troubled me, but I was not informed enough to talk about it, only to listen and learn." And while looking at words, you might want to look at "extort" and what you are implying by using it.Posted : Nov 05, 2015 06:27
Galanos
" Looking through WNDB’s twitter feed: at no point did they mention A Fine Dessert at all. I believe it is their policy not to critique books." Look through the Twitter feed of the most prominent WNDB personages. They very much were the most vocal people going after the book. No, they didn't use the official account, but the crusade was led by those most prominent personages who do, like it or not, represent their organization. I shouldn't have used 'attacking'. I'll concede that.Posted : Nov 05, 2015 06:07
Sarah
For the record, WNDB were not "the very people attacking the book." Criticism of the book (which is, contrary to what seems to be a prevalent opinion, different from an "attack") was first voiced by a librarian on her own blog. Individual readers also left comments as part of an open-forum discussion on Calling Caldecott. Sophie Blackall then chose to respond to those criticisms and offer her perspective. In response, individual readers, authors, and critics--including journalists-- expressed their personal criticism of the book. Looking through WNDB's twitter feed: at no point did they mention A Fine Dessert at all. I believe it is their policy not to critique books. Perhaps those who express the utmost concern that others read a complete text before offering a negative opinion might want to "stick to the facts" themselves. Especially when they are speaking of an offense like extortion, in connection with an author's exercise of free will, and an organization committed to diversity in children's book publishing. If anything, this and many of the other comments in this thread demonstrate just how much We Need Diverse Books is needed.Posted : Nov 05, 2015 05:46
Galanos
It really puts a bad taste in my mouth that the apology included a donation to WNDB. This isn't the first author who has done so to ameliorate criticism, and it strikes me almost as extortion money. Rather than donate to WNDB - run by the very people actively attacking the book - they should donate to other diversity promoting organizations. The WNDB crusading against a book until they get an apology and donation seems very unethical to me.Posted : Nov 05, 2015 03:31
Debra Johnson
The concept of slavery is introduced in association with dessert and smiles. Children might formulate many reasons to explain the illustration of a mother and daughter sharing the dessert in a closet. However, most will not guess that slaves were not allowed to consume the food they prepared. The problem is not the addition of diverse characters, but poor representation of the subject.Posted : Nov 04, 2015 09:33
willaful
I wonder why some commenters are so reluctant to believe the author. This is a short article; they could not include all the nuances of the critiques of the book -- although those are readily findable for anyone genuinely interested. The author found them, and paid attention, and learned from them. Are you assuming she was coerced? That she was insincere? Donating her royalties seems like a pretty good indication of sincerity to me.Posted : Nov 04, 2015 09:16
Colby
Has their been a statement as to whether or not We Need Diverse Books will be accepting Emily's donation?Posted : Nov 04, 2015 07:02
Layla King
If I were talented enough to write, I certainly wouldn't put a toe in children's literature. The last few years have had such volatile arguments. If whites write about blacks, we see backlash about their incomprehension of the subject, as well as a demand for more black writers. Must writers only write of their own ethnicity now? Would it have been better to have left the story of the slave and her daughter out of the book? We scream and demand diversity, but what does that mean? Is diversity only racial? Do we pick and choose the 'diversity of the month?' Transgender children are ok this week, but an overweight child isn't? Is the only alternative to write only what you are actually, totally familiar with, either by birth or direct association? And who in the world tells other people what they should or should not write anyway? Just don't read it, for heaven's sake! I am so over reading anything suggested by bloggers or journalists. I will continue toread descriptions of new releases and use my own judgment. I would have missed some great books if I hadn't done that in the last few years!Posted : Nov 04, 2015 09:03
Nan Stifel
I am concerned that Jenkins's apology has tainted this beautiful book. To depict a slave mother and daughter smiling while sharing a tender, secret moment together is not something that should be generalized as showing "happy slaves." Jenkins could have offered an explanation or an appeal for deeper exploration of the story instead of caving to the critics. Illustrator Sophie Blackall, on the other hand, has offered a rational, thoughtful explanation of her illustrations, including how long and hard she thought about the smiles. A Fine Dessert is a wonderful book that can foster discussions among families, teachers, and students. I'm glad Blackall has Finding Winnie for the Caldecott committee to review, because now they won't touch A Fine Dessert with a ten-foot pole. What a shame.Posted : Nov 04, 2015 06:01
Marsha Stewart
Dear Colleagues, I believe the point of this whole discussion is that this beautiful book contains images of "free" people of European descent, but the only historical image of people of African descent are slaves. Why are those black people eating in the closet? Because slaves could serve white people, but they could not sit at the table with them. Were there no "free" people of color in 1810? Were all black people slaves? What do you think the take away is for children? It is easy to justify anything as an adult, but how do I explain this to my granddaughter? I do not want to offend anyone, but as a librarian that serves children of all backgrounds, I feel honor bound to set the record straight for all children and expose all stereotypes so that the children I teach today will become sensitive, empathetic, and caring adults who truly believe that ALL people deserve the same respect that they expect to receive. I am sure that this comment will enrage more people, but I am willing to take the chance. Let's get past the personal sensitivity and step into the shoes of others just long enough to see the world through their eyes. Then take a look at this book.Posted : Nov 04, 2015 03:23
Mary Ann Miller
I agree with Terri. Of course slaves were happy sometime. To say different is an injustice to them. Yes, that is a black spot in our history. But strong people see joy in simple places and times. I think people are so busy tripping over themselves trying to be "sensitive" and "politically correct" that we forget what the real meaning of the book was. The book paints us all as belonging across the gaps of race., or interest, or religion, or.......the list can go on.Posted : Nov 04, 2015 02:09
Terri Street
I admit I have not read A Fine Dessert. But without having seen the actual illustration in question, I for one am a bit upset that so many people find a slave mother smiling at her daughter offensive. Yes, slavery was a horrible institution. Yes, slaves' lives were harsh and brutal. Yes, it was a horrendous injustice. But that said, is it so hard to believe that a slave mother never smiled at the beautiful face of a beloved child? Never found joy in any aspect of life? I find it much more probable that a slave mother would have taken great joy in her children, for without a bit of joy there can be no hope, and without hope people wither and die.Posted : Nov 04, 2015 01:28
Rose
Is Emily Jenkins donating all royalties from the book as well?Posted : Nov 03, 2015 09:24