After Katrina battered the Gulf Coast and the levees gave way in New Orleans, leaving many residents destitute, a maelstrom of criticism hit some newsrooms from readers who objected to the use of the word “refugee” in reference to the displaced victims. At The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, this prompted an internal debate. An abridged version follows:
From: Angela Tuck, Public Editor
Subject: Evacuees Please!!
We are still getting e-mails and phone calls from people objecting to the use of the word “refugee.”... On today’s Metro cover, we referred to a black hurricane victim as a refugee in a caption while referring to two white hurricane victims as evacuees in another caption. I’m sure this wasn’t intentional but it has prompted a number of calls from angry readers noting the different descriptions. In the future, since the word “refugee” is so upsetting to some despite being a technically correct description, let’s please refrain from using it . . . .
From: ***** *****, Business
Subject: Re: Evacuees Please!!
And will this principle apply the next time there’s a natural disaster in Sri Lanka or the Philippines or Congo?
From: ***** *****, Business
Subject: Re: This from the Chi Trib’s Ombud
Personally, I’m leaning toward the term “involuntary tourist.”
From: ***** *****, Metro
Subject: Re: This from the Chi Trib’s Ombud
Perhaps “nouveau Atlantan (or Houstonian).”
From: ***** *****, DeKalb Bureau
Subject: Re: Evacuees Please!!
New Orleans isn’t Sri Lanka, or even the Congo. There’s a difference, which I’d think would be self-evident. It’s silly and offensive to needlessly piss off large numbers of readers when there’s another word that works equally as well . . . .
From: ***** *****, Metro
Subject: one more on refugees/evacuees
. . . The backlash against the word evacuee — even here in the AJC newsroom — seems [to] be very telling of the divide that Hurricane Katrina has stirred up. Long after the flood waters have receded from New Orleans, that ugly divide . . . will continue. How sad.
From: ***** *****, Gwinnett Bureau
Subject: Re: Evacuees Please!!
With all due respect: Why are we allowing ourselves to be swayed by the oversensitivity of readers? Don’t we know words better than anyone? . . . Evacuating for hurricanes is a way of life for people on the Louisiana Gulf Coast. They often would be forced to leave for two days, but they were always able to come back to a home. This time was different. Their homes, their city, much of what they know is washed away. We need a better word than evacuee to convey that loss and that sense of plight. That word is refugee . . . .
From: ***** *****, Gwinnett Bureau
Subject: Re: one more on refugees/evacuees
It doesn’t conjure up images of people from another country for me . . . . Evacuees could be people with means who while deserving of empathy don’t require much help . . . .
From: ***** *****, Sports
Subject: Re: one more on refugees/evacuees
. . . Some of us really don’t care what you decide on this issue, and don’t deal with this issue in our copy, and don’t want to see another single e-mail on this issue . . . . Thanks in advance.
From: ***** *****, Sports
Subject: Re: evacuees please!!
. . . We can’t discount the racial aspect that has grown up around this issue, as many African-Americans have taken this as one more piece of evidence that the U.S. government thinks of them as second-class citizens.
From: Julia D. Wallace, Editor
Subject: the last word
To all,
I appreciate the debate on the use of the word refugee. However, mass e-mails is probably not the best way for constructive conversation. For those who want to discuss further . . . I will be glad to discuss with anyone interested at 4:30 p.m. Monday in the 7th floor conference room.
As public editor Angela Tuck told readers in a subsequent column, the Journal-Constitution chose to adapt its style, “using other words, such as evacuee, to describe those displaced by the storm.”
Enjoy this piece? Consider a CJR trial subscription.
