Terry Neal, the black “Talking Points” columnist at washingtonpost.com, wrote on Tuesday that race really had nothing much to do with the Jayson Blair scandal.
Did race play a role in Neal’s hiring? In his desire to protect “diversity” from the taint of Blair’s behavior? I have no idea, but I do have a strong belief that as long as race is a factor in hiring such questions are as inevitable as they are disgusting.
Similarly, The New Republic‘s blog issued this plaintive plea: “DON’T BLAME AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR JAYSON BLAIR.”
Why not?
[A]s normally administered, affirmative action policies imply giving candidates from underrepresented minority groups the benefit of the doubt in hiring, promotion, and application decisions. The policies often also imply giving these candidates a slight boost relative to non-minority candidates…. The policy Howell Raines and other Times executives were administering when they overlooked these things wasn’t affirmative action; it was the fetishization of diversity, which is a complete perversion of affirmative action.
If TNR really thinks that “as normally administered” affirmative action programs provide only a “slight boost” and a “benefit of the doubt,” then it really hasn’t a clue about racial preferences in real life. Its idealized version may be how affirmative action was “supposed” to work, but anyone who thinks that’s how it in fact does work either has not looked or is wearing some pretty thick ideological blinders.
This is what Raines said (via Andrew Sullivan):
“Our paper has a commitment to diversity and by all accounts [Blair] appeared to be a promising young minority reporter,” Mr. Raines said. “I believe in aggressively providing hiring and career opportunities for minorities.” “Does that mean I personally favored Jayson?” he added, a moment later. “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.”
Thus, he gave Blair “the benefit of the doubt in hiring, promotion, and application decisions.” Affirmative action by anyone’s standards.
(Dont you love that part — “I, as a white man from Alabama…” Imagine a newspaper being conducted this way!)
Dom
“…I, as a white man from Alabama…”
What the heck? Is this a code for white liberal guilt?
No, I get it now.
As a white man from Alabama, you would naturally expect him to be racist. The fact that he cut Jayson, a minority reporter, some slack, should be excused (and maybe he even deserves a pat on the back,) because at least he didn’t act like a racist.
If TNR really thinks that “As normally administered,” AA only gives a “slight boost,” then it ought to direct its comments not at critics of the Times, but at the racial preferences industry. How many times have we heard that the end of racial preferences in college admissions will lead to the elimination of minority matriculation?
Supporters of AA can’t have it both ways; either AA is crucial or it’s only a small boost.