Jonathan Kay has resigned as editor-in-chief of The Walrus, amid a highly charged controversy over an idea to create a so-called “appropriation prize” that has triggered intense backlash on social media and exposed deep divides within the Canadian arts and journalism communities.

In an email, Kay said he “was definitely not asked to file a resignation.” He said he chose to step down on Saturday night because he “frequently butted heads” with his boss and “got tired of the internal battles.”

“The Walrus Foundation is moving in a direction that is different from what I was hoping. My dream was always to create a Canadian version of Atlantic magazine, which offers intelligent well-researched viewpoints and articles on all sorts of issues, including controversial topics,” he said. “The cultural appropriation issue would be only one small example of that.”

“I very much respect all the people on the editorial team there, and I know they will continue to make Canada’s best journalism,” he added.

Deputy editor Carmine Starnino confirmed that Kay had resigned, but declined further comment. The magazine’s publisher, Shelley Ambrose, could not be reached.

Appointed editor-in-chief in 2014, Kay is among a group of prominent Toronto journalists at the centre of a polarizing debate that has grown from appropriation of voice to white privilege, free speech and the lack of diversity in Canadian newsrooms.

The controversy began with the resignation of another magazine editor, Hal Niedzviecki, who stepped down last week as editor of The Writers’ Union of Canada (TWUC) magazine, after backlash over his editorial in a recent issue dedicated to indigenous writing, in which he encouraged writers to “Win the Appropriation Prize.”

Niedzviecki opened the piece by saying, “I don’t believe in cultural appropriation.” Acknowledging that most Canadian literature is written by authors who are “white and middle-class,” he encouraged those writers “to imagine other cultures,” and learn from indigenous writers, who “so often must write from what they don’t know.”

The editorial triggered immediate outrage on social media. One of the issue’s contributors, Helen Knott, posted on Facebook that she was “seriously disgusted that someone would use the Indigenous issue . . . as a jump point for a case for cultural appropriation on the backs, words, and reputations of the Indigenous writers featured in it.”

The union’s Equity Task Force issued a scathing statement, saying the “essay contradicts and dismisses the racist systemic barriers faced by Indigenous writers and other racialized writers.”

Last Wednesday, the union apologized. Niedzviecki told the Star he “failed to recognize . . . how deeply painful acts of cultural appropriation have been to indigenous peoples.” He also said “it is important that we engage with each other” and cautioned against “a chill on expressing ideas.”

Kay, who is a former editor at the National Post, quickly came to Niedzviecki’s defence, posting a link to the Star’s story on Twitter, with the comments: “The mobbing of Hal Niedzviecki is what we get when we let Identity-politics fundamentalists run riot” and “Sad & shameful.”

Ken Whyte, a former editor-in-chief of the National Post and Maclean’s, retweeted Kay’s post, and said: “I will donate $500 to the founding of the appropriation prize if someone else wants to organize.”

A collection of high-profile editors and columnists from a variety of media outlets, including the National Post, CBC and Maclean’s, proceeded to pledge hundreds of dollars to fund the creation of such a prize — “for freedom of thought and expression,” as one editor tweeted.

Kay retweeted Whyte’s post, but was not among those who promised to donate money to the cause. He defended his position in a column in the National Post on Friday, in which he criticized TWUC for an “over-the-top apology” that suggests it is “a chorus for the most restrictive views on acceptable speech.”

The Twitter campaign ignited further outrage, particularly among indigenous writers, some of whom tweeted that they had asked for their writing to be removed from the Walrus website. Journalists from other minority groups described the “appropriation prize” campaign as evidence of the “cluelessness” of the primarily white CanLit establishment.

“Instead of being compassionate about the rage they saw stemming from the pain of exclusion, they ridiculed the marginalized among their own colleagues and readers they profess to represent,” wrote the Star’s race and gender columnist Shree Paradkar.

Niedzviecki posted on Facebook that “Calls for an actual ‘appropriation prize’ are extremely unhelpful” and “do not represent me in any way.” Some of the editors who initially pledged to help fund the prize have since apologized.

In an email Sunday, Whyte said: “I’m beginning to think that no one actually read Niedzviecki’s piece in Write magazine.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“He called for an ‘appropriation prize’ to celebrate the most sensitive, respectful, and truthful explorations of another’s culture, and he explicitly denounced dishonest and exploitative approaches to other cultures. I happen to agree with those sentiments,” he said, adding that Kay’s resignation is “devastating to The Walrus and Canadian journalism.”

Kay told the Star he “never talked about” the controversy with his boss or the Walrus Foundation, but said the issue “exemplified” his “frustration,” which “has been building for a while now.”

He said his comments about the appropriation issue were “directed at TWUC, which is not an indigenous organization . . . and then all sorts of people jumped on my tweet and took it further, including that insensitive appropriation prize tweet.”

“We must have looked like a bunch of stupid Toronto jackasses joking about what to many people is an extremely serious issue,” he said. “I regret that, and should have called the joke out for being bad and insensitive.”

Through emails with indigenous writers, he said he educated himself “about the special sensitivity in regard to cultural appropriation among indigenous people,” however he said he remains “an artistic universalist.”

“If a black author wants to write a First Nation story, or an Asian author wants to write a Hispanic protagonist, we should find room for that, and start from the presumption that they’re going to do so respectfully,” he said. “Only when it’s obvious that they have bad motives should we call them out for cultural appropriation.”