Oxford University Press is committed to promoting and maintaining a culture of equality, diversity, and inclusion, and acting upon issues of diversity and inclusion is vitally important to fulfilling our mission. We recognize that many groups are currently under-represented in our music catalogue, and we are committed to changing and rapidly improving this through future publishing. As part of this commitment, we are currently accepting submissions from composers who:
• live with a disability; and/or
• are women; and/or
• identify on the broader spectrum of gender; and/or
• are from under-represented ethnic groups; and/or
• are from a lower socio-economic group
We encourage composers from these groups to submit their music for review.
Note one interesting divergence from the American model: instead of "equity" they substitute the word "equality," perhaps an homage to the French Revolution? Can we imagine the discussion? The editors open their email to discover several new submissions. Do they look first at the scores or at the accompanying letter? The score will reveal something about the musical quality of the submission. But the important information, according to the policy, must be contained in the cover letter: not just the name of the composer, but whether they have a disability, their gender identity, their ethnic descent and their income level. Perhaps the score could be sent later as the initial decision, apparently, will be made on the basis of the cover letter.
In the 21st century every desirable area in society, such as music publishing, has to reflect the current demographic makeup of the society at large. Why is this? Just because? What if someone questions it by saying that notated music is roughly a millennium old in Great Britain and for all but the last fifty years or so the population was overwhelmingly white. So one would expect that, unless we are just talking about music composed in the last few decades, the authors would be overwhelmingly white. The issue of the presence of women composers is an interesting one that probably requires a closer look.
But let's take a run at that word "desirable" because if we look behind that, why don't we apply the same inclusive policies to the less desirable areas of employment? Does progressive policy demand that we promote inclusive policies in the areas of ebony, reed and tone-wood harvesters, those who mine and smelt the metals used in musical instruments, the demographics of the employees of piano manufacturers and so on? Why should these policies only apply to the most desirable and politically prominent areas in the music business like publishing and, for example, conducting?
What really troubles me about these policy pronouncements are two main issues: there was no discussion, no debate, simply a statement of fully formulated policy. Second, there is no hint of awareness of things like historical and cultural forces and events that have shaped the development of music, nor is there any awareness of the element of aesthetic quality, nor commercial viability. Traditionally a publisher would seek to balance these two aims: aesthetic quality and salability. Now it appears that the primary criteria are those relating to membership in a notional excluded or oppressed group. Where is the discussion explaining why these groups were chosen? These things are not nearly as obvious as they would seem. If they were to apply a strict adherence to the policy they would have to measure the makeup of their catalogue against the demographic weight of all of these identity groups: the correct percentage of disabled, women, non-binary, various ethnic groups, not to mention the economic class of poor people. What does any of that have to do with musical quality?
This obliviousness to history and tradition is deeply ironic because Oxford University Press is, after Cambridge University Press, the oldest university press in the world, dating back to the 16th century.
So what should the editors at OUP be considering in regard to submissions? It's really perfectly obvious, isn't it? As far as scholarly works go, ones that advance our understanding in significant ways, bring things into perspective in new ways and so on. As far as compositions go, the usual criteria apply: compelling musical interest, works that would be of wide appeal, etc.
I rather suspect that this boldly stated policy will be quietly eased into the background and then dropped entirely in a few years. After all, its only purpose is political and that usefulness will wane in time.
