The Magical World Of Liberal Equity

One is stunned, shocked by the news.

An analysis of comprehensive data for roughly 1,000 The New York Times employees conducted by members of the union that represents its newsroom found that Black and Latino staffers are far less likely than their white peers to receive strong job ratings.

Job ratings have financial implications as they affect the amount of employees’ bonuses. This is according to the NewsGuild union. NPR’s staff suggest that this differential is more significant than the others because it is indicative of a systemic issue the paper is not addressing. They claim it is demoralizing and leads to some staff members leaving early.

The guild’s study, released today, comes amidst uneasy negotiations over the newspaper’s contract with the NewsGuild. The paper is still operating under the terms of the last one, which expired in 2021.

“Being Hispanic reduced the odds of receiving a high score by about 60%, and being Black cut the chances of high scores by nearly 50%,” says the report from the NewsGuild chapter representing employees of The New York Times. The study, shared before its release with NPR News, reflects data stretching back to 2018, when a new rating system was put in place.

While there was some variation, on average the Black employee’s performance rose while that of Latinos declined over the years — the white worker consistently outperformed their peers.

Well, gosh, let’s see. This is what you shouldn’t be shocked by if you hire someone on any other basis than their competence. This means that if you hire someone on the basis only of their competence, it should not surprise you to see them fail to perform the same job as the competent person.

Think of it this way: If blue-eyed people had an advantage in hiring, since the newspaper decided Diversity, Equity and Inclusion meant that more blue-eyed employees were needed, then it makes sense that they would be less successful overall because their performance was not based on any attribute.

Seriously, is anyone really denying that The New York Times are racists? It seems that those who think racism is the sole explanation of racial inequalities in job performance must be racists. This is not mentioned in the NPR report that I linked above. This is impossible to believe for the progressive/liberal mind.

Therefore, the evaluation system at the Times will have to change to reflect DEI priorities. Managers of newsrooms will need to find a way to identify who can do the job.

I don’t feel a bit sorry for the Times, or any newspaper that has promoted the DEI ideology. My years of experience working in newspapers meant that I knew it was common for people to be promoted and hired beyond their abilities because they met a diversity requirement. I can recall arguing over this with a white newsroom manager back in the days when such statements were still commonplace. He pointed out that one could either adhere to an “ethic of diversity” or produce a high-quality newspaper. But you couldn’t have both. The manager had fully bought in to the DEI philosophy and said, I quote: “Diversity” is an aspect of quality. “

No it isn’t. Managers in newsrooms are often liberals, who tend to be disproportionately white and want to live a morally pure life. One time, I had the opportunity to have a conversation about a second-tier white liberal editor. He said that he was scared he would be sued in libel court. Why? His job included rewriting and re-reporting news stories about diversity hirings that were often inaccurate. I was told by him that he worried that his rewrites would be missed and that his newspaper was likely to face a lawsuit. The paper’s higher-ups refused to hear his concerns about his risk, and he was even expected to perform extra work in order to make up for their moral superiority for employing diverse staff.

I felt comfortable telling him this, as I was a conservative. Although he insisted that he wasn’t a conservative, he became fed up with all the lies the newsroom used to justify racist hiring practices.

It wasn’t that minority reporters were always worse. The fact was that in my time as a newspaper journalist (1989-2010), and maybe still today (I don’t know), there were far, far fewer black and Latino journalists than there was demand for them by white newspaper executives who agonized over the lack of “diversity” on their staffs. Believe me. I didn’t see any of that agonizing about how to make a newspaper better. Even if you are a POC journalist with minimal skills, you can write your own newspaper. One case saw a POC journalist who was promoted beyond the ability to report and write, only to be publicly embarrassed by their poor writing. This person eventually quit daily journalism. It was clear that they understood why they were hired and promoted. With time and experience they could have been a good journalist, but their status as a POC made them eligible for a position in the top tier of the paper’s staff that only whites with greater experience, insight and talent could ever dream to attain.

I have a bee in my bonnet about this stuff because in 1997, a section editor at a newspaper I really wanted to work for told me I was the perfect candidate for an opening, and that my clips (writing samples) were first-rate. The job interview was a mere formality for him. Fantastic! That was what I thought. The man then stopped answering my calls. After finally locating him, he admitted that the editor-in-chief (a white man) had told him that interviewing me was impossible until there had been a nationwide search for women or POC candidates for the position. This editor was clearly aware of his behavior towards me and told me I couldn’t have a chance at the job despite my qualifications due to my skin colour and sex.

I finally got hold of the editor-in chief and said that I would purchase my own flight ticket for the interview. Please give me another chance. Nope.

Months passed without a word from them. In the meantime, I was offered a job at a better newspaper. The day after I accepted the job offer, another paper called to inform me that they could not find a POC or female job candidate and would be happy to fly me in for an assessment. It was great to let them know that I had found a better job.

But what if there was no better job for me? The job I was interested in at the paper wasn’t for journalism reasons. It was embarrassing to hear that I was qualified to do the job, and then later to learn that I would have to move to the back to accommodate a woman or POC. Although it was embarrassing that women and people of color were previously disadvantaged when they applied for newsroom jobs, is the best way to erase past discrimination based on sex or race.

Do I need to mention that newspaper managers never worry about lack of viewpoint diversity in their staff?

Subscribe Today

Get weekly emails in your inbox

Journalism will get worse with these equity systems, and those responsible for maintaining the integrity and quality of work and workplaces will be left behind. Because DEI ideology has become dogmatic and you can’t dissent without affecting your career, they will continue to lie to their colleagues and to themselves. The Times, recall, is a newspaper that fired its highly regarded medical correspondent Donald G. McNeil because some spoiled brats on a Times-sponsored learning vacation complained that he used the n-word while trying to answer a kid’s question about whether the n-word is ever appropriate to use. All of them can hang.

Ideology has caused serious damage to journalism in America, just like academia. To provide reliable information for voters and decision-makers, a liberal democracy requires a strong journalism industry. The industry has been corrupted by ideology, making it harder and more difficult to believe that the information is accurate. These are the realities that liberal journalists created for themselves. Again, I would like to point out to you that nowhere in that NPR report about this is there any recognition that there could be an explanation for the findings of the Times employees’ union that runs counter to DEI theory. They have been trained not to consider it.

It is fascinating to think that athletics is the only profession where no one hires on the basis DEI. It is the most important thing. No matter the player’s color, you want to have the best team. It is the right thing to do. What makes sports so much more important than journalism or academia?