Well, brickbacon, I feel that there’s an important distinction here between creating a witch hunt against black reporters and criticising affirmative action programs. If affirmative action programs get cut down because of Jayson Blair, that doesn’t mean that suddenly black reporters will have to be more qualified than their white counterparts to earn a position, they simply no longer have to be less qualified to get a position.
I see this as an argument against afirmative action. Other reporters and staffers at the NY Times were complaining about Blair and some have said that there were signs that editors should have more readily picked up upon but choose to overlook due to their affirmative action policies. When it ended up being a huge fuck up for all parties involved, this has unfairly gone back to work against numerous qualified black reporters that didn’t need affirmative action to get hired in the first place.
It’s the same here at my undergrad school. My impression is that the vast majority of black students at my school would have gotten in anyway without affirmative action, but the presensce of affirmative action is causing people to unfairly stereotype black students as less capable or academic. Given that, even for CU Boulder, the black population far outnumbers the football program, a large number of black students that I’ve talked to often have people ask them about their involvement in the football program for no reason what so ever beyond their race. Asking a 6 foot 155 lb. biochem major what position they play on the football team? :rolleyes:
I think that this is a valid argument against affirmative action.
The transcontinental railroad gave stock options to all it’s workers. :rolleyes:
That’s like saying people from the middle east immegrate with loads of cash. :dubious:
I don’t know about impact on black reporters, but it is a telling comment on racial attitudes today that the Jayson Blair incident was seized upon as an opportunity to muse as to the merits of affirmative action and minority recruitment programs, whereas the discovery that Jack Kelley, a white reporter at USA Today, engaged in similar (and arguably more egregious ) fabrications was viewed as simply a case of a bad apple. No one asked if Jack Kelley received preferential treatment or consideration because he was white. Or if maybe there is a problem with unqualified white reporters in the newsroom.
Um… no, that’s not telling at all.
Jack Kelly wasn’t hired from an afirmative action program.
If a less qualified candiate (Eg. Blair) is hired through a diversity program, then it makes sense to question the hiring of less qualified candiates.
There’s a big difference between showing that racism still exists and proving that black journalists are in any way handicapped by Blair’s actions.
Hey, two of my white childhood friends moved into predominantly black / hispanic neighborhoods. They were about as non-racist as you can get when we were growing up together. After experiencing quite a bit of racial bullying, getting told “You don’t belong here!”, having their kids harrassed at school, etc., they have since concluded that they would never voluntarily go back to a minority neighborhood if they could possibly help it! They call themselves “racially aware” now and are quite bitter about their experience.
I was also very liberal about racial matters when I was growing up. (I dated a black girl in college.) In my late twenties I went to a predominantly black university to get a Master’s Degree in Education. I was also told “You don’t belong here!”; people tried to intimidate me on many different occasions.
My point? We certainly have not eliminated racism. Racism comes in all colors, there are plenty of black racists out there, as well as whites. I just get really tired of the “eternal black victim” attitude, when nowadays they are just as likely to be perpetrators of racist actions as they are victims!
I’d just like to point out that I as a white person was singled out on this level just the other day. I find most often that this cultural accounting is levelled at me by people who are NOT black. People saying that I have a responsibility to change things because I have benefitted as a white person. So while I don’t have a problem with benefitting myself, and am unwilling to undercut myself to lower myself to the level of someone less fortunate, I am perfectly willing to accept the responsibility of helping my fellow man, black or white, but I have to be successful and receive benefits before I can pass any on. I just get a little tired of the rage at white people being levelled at me. So it cuts both ways on this particular issue of accounting, and while it happens more often that someone who is not black levels it at me, that doesn’t mean black people never hold white people to this type of accounting.
Or what about when power suits, martinis and Mercedes Benzes were considered cool? Or that stupid time when it was cooler to have a Blaupunkt stereo than a Magnavox? And remember when the kids thought that working on Wall Street was so much cooler? Or when all those older ‘kids’ told us how much cooler it was when they were doing it back in the 60s and how we’re all just copy cats who are copying youth off of them? What about all those people who thought it was cool to invade Iraq? Or what about back when we were kids and it was so awful if that bitch was wearing the same dress? Man dumb fucking kids with their silly notions of cool.
Yes, it will affect black people, but how it will affect black people is what will determine whether or not it sets black people back. Maybe it will just show that black people don’t need quotas to get them a job. That would affect them certainly.
Most of your cites show that black reporters feared being discriminated against, not that they actually were being discriminated against.
I’d forgotten the Jason Blair story until you brought it up.
I have felt greater fear in black neighborhoods that I have lived in, because I was at greater risk. This does not apply to all black neighborhoods. It doesn’t mean I didn’t feel out of place in white neighborhoods either. Once I was strip searched publically without provocation by some cops in a suburban white neighborhood, and that made me wary of small white towns in New Jersey. Pretending like some black neighborhoods are not something worthy of watching your back in, is naive at best. Also, sometimes it’s just a matter of “strange unfamiliar surroundings”, and not a matter of racism.
Personally, I’d appreciate it if people would stop asking me to solve macrocosmic issues that are really interpersonal, and I can’t do anything about. If you want me to treat you like a human being, consider it done, but if you want me to make someone else treat you like a human being, I’m sorry, but I can’t do that. I don’t lump all white people, or all black people into a category, I’d appreciate the same courtesy from anyone I’m dealing with.
Since when does Affirmative Action = less qualified. That is a fallacy and is completely unsupportable. Besides, Jayson Balir was more than qualified to work at the New York Times. This article discusses some of the things he’d done before plagiarizing.
Black or white, Jayson Blair had a pretty impressive record (on paper) when he was hired by the NYT (probably better than most applicants). To claim he wasn’t qualified is ridiculous. Nobody has ever claimed he was a bad reporter or an untalented writer. He has no intellectual shortcomings. It’s his dishonesty that was the at issue. The problem was that the NYT didn’t check their facts. They didn’t check to see if he had graduated, they didn’t investigate his character, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with AA or the program they had in place.
A more inclusive quote.
And, no character flaws from a “former total cokehead?”
[" If there were any doubt about Jayson Blair’s character, he revealed himself as a charlatan in an extraordinary interview by Sridhar Pappu in the New York Observer. Blair admitted to “abusing alcohol and doing drugs, cocaine to be specific.” The extent of Blair’s self-immolation was evident in his description of himself as a “former total cokehead.”
Apparently still delusional in his Observer interview, Blair stated he was not an “affirmative action hire.” The plain truth is that Blair got his job at the Times and was promoted because of a program of racial preference.
Howell Raines, the Times’ executive editor, recently admitted this much when he stated: “Our paper has a commitment to diversity and by all accounts he appeared to be a promising young minority reporter. I believe in aggressively providing hiring and career opportunities for minorities. Does that mean I personally favored Jayson? Not consciously. But you have a right to ask if I, as a white man from Alabama, with those convictions, gave him one chance too many by not stopping his appointment to the sniper team. When I look into my heart for the truth of that, the answer is yes.”](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/29/170732.shtml)
True, but most of those affected by Jayson Blair don’t know they were. They were never hired.
First, I never mentioned Black neighborhoods in this thread. Of course many black neighborhoods in the US are dangerous, but that doesn’t mean that’s the reason most people don’t want to live in black neighborhoods. It’s like when people claim there are no babies to adopt. This is bullshit, there are plenty of non-white babies, or disabled babies that would love a home. Just like those people who repeat that fallacy, there are people who say all black neighborhoods are dangerous, when in reality, they think black people are dangerous. There are plenty of middle class minority neighborhoods that many white people won’t live in.
Fair enough. Just try not to pretend that racism and discrimination doesn’t affect Blacks in numerous ways.
You ever going to provide proof for this claim? Or just keep making it and hope that if you say it enough it’ll become true?
Obviously not all black people need affirmative action, and many are qualified, right? So cutting back on affirmative action wouldn’t affect them, right?
You’ve still not proven that the Blair scandal had anything to do with the status of non-affirmative action hires.
brickbacon: I wasn’t referring directly to you with my black neighborhoods comment. It was brought up in the thread by someone else.
FinnAgain: It’s pretty hard to prove or disprove whether or not someone as actually affected by Jason Blair. There is no statistic for what Human Resources Managers were thinking as they tossed resumes into the shredder. So asking for a cite is pretty disingenuous. I personally doubt that black hires were all that adversely affected by Jason Blair, but there is no way to prove or disprove that.
Racism certainly exists, and it definitely affects people’s hiring decisions, but I don’t think it’s a problem on the level most people make it out to be, and I think that clinging to it as a root cause is a major source of the rift between ‘white’ and ‘black’ people.
Every time we make an impression on someone we meet, we have a chance to chip away at their presumptions, if we go in with a presumption about their presumption, we’re only going to see a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Do you actually read what other people post? Where did I say he had no character flaws? Please tell me. In fact, I stated it was some of character flaws that became a problem. Besides, what does his coke habit have to do with AA? Are you stating that you think the AA leads to more people with coke habits being hired? Do you think Black people are disproportionately coke addicts? How would getting rid of the program prevent another Jayson Blair. Conversely, would only hiring minorities get rid of people like Stephan Glass or Rick Bragg?
I say no. Dishonesty is dishonesty. An asshole is an asshole. AA has nothing to do with it.
Then it’s rather silly to state as a fact that people weren’t hired due to it, eh?
You might wanna look up the word ‘disingenuous’.
I don’t think it means what you think it does.
This is the Dope for crying out loud. Asking for proof is now beyond the pale? :rolleyes:
Sure there is. Show me non AA hires pre and post Blair. That’ll at least be a start.
Do you actually read what you post?
So while he was on his rise to power he was, in his own words, a total cokehead. This doesn’t mean he was less qualified? :dubious:
I’ve already furnished you with quotes that the Times was more agressive in keeping him on than if he’d not been black. Obviously the behavioral abnormalities native to cokeheads were overlooked due to their policies regarding AA.
How would hiring based only on merit ensure that merit was the prime characteristic they selected on? Jeez, I have no idea.
Are we into strawman territory, or taking a logical premise to an absurd conclusion? I can’t quite tell.
What? When he was more than qualified when he was hired. His resume was better than most people’s at that point. Just because he began to fuck up means nothing.
Has nothing to do with AA. This words my sentiments nicely.
Blair was. if nothing else, a great liar. Like any great liar, he prays on peoples weaknesses to further his own goals. The fact that he was black is incidental. If he was white, he would have made up stories about growing up in segregated Alabama to endear himself to Raines. To point to a AA is crazy.
In this article, a reporter gives insight as to how skillful a liar Blair was.
Blair was a master of deception. Just like most white reporters caught plagiarizing, he was able to con people using every advantage he had. It has nothing to do with program aimed at diversity.
You would have a point if AA resulted in unqualified people being hired to do jobs. More specifically, Jayson Blair being unqualified to work at the NYT. He was qualified.
His was a good candidate on paper. Him being black had nothing to do with him being hired. If there was no program, he would have been hired anyway. To blame AA is erroneous.
Than it must be equally erroneous to claim that his firing damaged AA, right? Since he wasn’t an AA case and all.
Unless you’re one of those idiots who is convinced that everything is due to race, anyway.
Yes, it does. I’ve provided you with Raines’ quote. Twice now.
Yes… and yet I’ve already shown you that Raines kept him on staff longer than he would had he not been black. There’s no evading that I’m afraid. No matter what anybody else tries to say Raines really thought, we have Raines’ own words.
Hrmmm. Let’s see. We have Raines’ own words, and we have your spin. And to listen to what Raines himself said is crazy? Mmmm hmmm.
Do I have to repost, a third time, what Raines himself said?
Claim it had nothing to do with diversity, and do it over, and over, and over again. But you’ll still be wrong.
Hrm. He was hired when he was, what, 23 or 24? And fired when he was 27? And during this time he was a ‘total cokehead’, in his own words. And you’re still going to claim he was qualified?
Leaving aside his drug abuse, let’s see what else we can find on this ‘qualified’ individual.
Again, yes, some of his early work looked good. But the Raines quote clearly states that he was given preferential treatment due to the color of his skin.
