In an effort to be cute, black columnist Leonard Pitts discusses the “Cloud Cast Over White Journalists” caused by the recent scandal involving USA Today reporter Jack Kelley. Pitts tries to make the point that critics who complained racial preference playing a large role in the Jayson Blair scandal who do not do so regarding Kelley are being hypocritical. Pitts throws down the following rhetorical gauntlet:
Did USA Today advance a moderately capable journalist because he was white?
Did some white editor mentor him out of racial solidarity even though Kelley was unqualified?
In light of this fiasco, should we re-examine the de facto affirmative action that gives white men preferential treatment in our newsrooms?
But if the answer to all these questions is “No,” as appears almost certainly to be the case (except the last one, since there is no affirmative action program that favors white men because they are white men), Pitts’s point dissipates into a false parallel and disappears.
UPDATE
Kaimi Wenger comments on my post and the Pitts column here. He writes, among other points, the following:
Rosenberg is partly correct — the answer to all of these questions [did USA Today hire/mentor/promote Jack Kelley because he is white] is almost certainly “no.” But in his correctness, he misses what I see as the point of Pitts’ editorial — indeed, Rosenberg’s assertion about the answer to these questions only underlines Pitts’ point.
Pitts’ point, as I read the article, is that of course no one thinks USA Today advanced Kelley because he was white. Of course no editor mentored Kelley out of racial solidarity. To suggest this is borderline preposterous.
So why, Pitts asks, when Jayson Blair fabricated stories at the New York Times, were people so ready to make similar accusations about him?
And why is it that Jack Kelley has the luxury of simply being a bad journalist, but Jayson Blair has to be known as a bad Black journalist?
I’m afraid the answer to Kaimi’s questions is as obvious as the answer to Pitts’: Kelley was not hired/promoted/mentored as part of a policy designed to advance journalists based on their race. Jayson Blair was.
Pitts’ argument is vacuous. But frighteningly enough, he believes he has actually said something meaningful.
And in the world of post-rationalism, in which much of academia and the media is living, he did say something meaningful.
He said “I’m right, you’re wrong, nya nya nya!” And an unfortunate number of heads nod in agreement, feeling a strong punch of righteous indignation swelling in their chests.
Pitts article misidentifies the primary recipient of affirmative action in the newsroom, the white feminist woman.
Since he ignores the obvious, how can his article make sense.
Here’s why. Although the quota mongers would like black men to be at the top, the educated black men to fill the slots don’t exist. White feminist women outrank black women slightly in the quota hierarchy simply because they are white and they have also successfully developed a bizarre argument that they belong to the “oppressed.” Asian and Hispanic women are dismissed by those white feminist women as “submissive” and “backward” and, thus, not deserving of a place on the quota ladder.
A little honesty about the actual workings of the quota system might help.
Pitts and White Journalism
Leonard Pitts has a recent op-ed wondering how the Kelley scandal at USA Today will affect white journalism. He writes: [Kelley] lied about where he had been, what he had seen, who he had talked to, what they had said….
I actually like Pitts’ article. I don’t know anything about him but I do think he raises interesting questions. At the time of the Jason Blair fiasco I thought the entire problem was caused by well intentioned but wrong leadership at the NYT. But with the scandal at USA Today maybe it is not that simple. Maybe there are many in the press who are incompetent and/or so ideologically driven that they either fail to see or are willing to overlook obvious wrong doing by those whose opinion they agree with.