Is ‘voodoo economics’ a derogatory, racist term?: Public Editor
Is an economic phrase coined by George H.W. Bush in 1980 best avoided in the Toronto Star?
Lucas Oleniuk / Toronto Star
Order this photo
Toronto Star Public Editor Kathy English weighs in on a business colloquialism that critics say has racist connotations.
In 1980, in challenging Ronald Reagan in the
Republican presidential primaries, George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush Sr.)
disparaged his opponent’s promise of massive tax cuts for the rich as
“voodoo economic policy.”
Thus was born the term “voodoo economics” as a
derogatory label to describe unrealistic “supply-side” economic
policies that call for reducing taxes and maintaining or increasing
public spending with the expectation that balanced budgets will
magically come about.
In the 35 years since, “voodoo economics” has
been widely used in public discourse and the media, including hundreds
of times in the Toronto Star. Most recently, an editorial about
Toronto’s budget stated that the city has a long history of “accounting
hocus-pocus” and concluded “So, year after year, city hall is stuck
relying on voodoo economics.”
That reference sparked a letter to the editor
expressing concern that the Star’s use of the term “voodoo economics”
was, “in a word, racist.”
According to letter writer M. NourbeSe Philip,
“voodoo,” the common term for the West African religion Vodun (also
practiced in Haiti), is “a derogatory, racist term for a complex
spiritual and social practice which is misunderstood by Westerners.
“In denigrating the cultural and spiritual
practices of Africa and Haiti you also denigrate the people,” said
Philip, a Toronto poet, writer and lawyer.
This matter came to my attention earlier this
month when a colleague of Philip wrote to inquire further on the Star’s
use of the term “voodoo economics.” That letter, written by Richard
Douglass-Chin, an associate professor at the University of Windsor, was
co-signed by four other Canadian university professors.
It expressed the view that “voodoo economics” is a “dismissive and racist misnomer.
“The West African practice of Vodun, commonly
known as Voodoo, has absolutely nothing to do with poor economic
policy,” Douglass-Chin wrote
So, is “voodoo economics” a racist and
derogatory term best avoided by the Star or is this a matter of
political correctness run amok? Let me share the understanding we’ve
come to here.
To my knowledge, this is the first time any
concerns have been raised with the Toronto Star regarding this economic
term that has become part of the mainstream vernacular. I checked also
with the style guides of The Canadian Press and The Associated Press and
found no indication that “voodoo economics” is a sensitive term best
avoided by the media.
As I told Douglass-Chin and Philip, I
certainly don’t think there was any “racist” intent in the Star’s use of
this phrase. For better or worse, this is an issue to which no one here
seems to have given any prior thought and there was no understanding of
the possibility of causing offence.
But, in looking deeper into this matter, and
in consulting widely with other public editors and ombudsmen though the
Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO), the global organization to which I
belong, I have come to understand these concerns, as have others in the
Star’s newsroom.
Many of the ombudsmen and public editors with
whom I consulted simply regard “voodoo economics” as a tired, imprecise
cliché, best to be avoided for that reason alone.
We also learned that the New York Times style
manual seemingly frowns upon the use of “voodoo” in such a context —
though it has indeed been used widely in the Times in past years,
including by Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman.
In considering all of this, the co-chairs of
the newsroom style committee, the arbitrator of language and usage in
the Star, have concluded that “voodoo economics” is a term best avoided
in the Star in future. I agree that aiming to avoid its use is the right
course now that we have been made aware that it causes offence. To be
clear though, I don’t expect a complete ban is feasible given that this
term is still used in public discourse and likely can’t be avoided in
quoting others engaged in political and economic debate.
While the Star and most other media
organizations are generally reluctant to ban outright any words and
phrases, we do consider language sensitivities and aim to avoid words
and phrases that perpetuate hurtful stereotypes.
As Douglas-Chinn pointed out, most of us now
clearly understand that the schoolyard term “Indian giver” is offensive
to aboriginal people and we avoid its use. Indeed, that is a term to be avoided in the Star.
Thus, as Douglass-Chin rightly asks, “In all good conscience, how does one term merit banning while the other does not?”
That is a convincing point and I am grateful
for the efforts of Philip and Douglass-Chin to create understanding
here, and perhaps, within our community overall. Indeed, in our
multicultural Canada of 2015, can’t we find a better economic term than a
derogatory cliché coined in a U.S. election some four decades ago?
