zharate1 / Depositphotos.com
CONLEY COMMENTARY (WSAU) – Suppose you run an auto repair shop. You have an opening for a mechanic. As luck would have it, an incredible job applicant walks in. He used to be a NASCAR pit boss. Before that he worked as a factory technician for General Motors. If anything, he’s overqualified. But he now lives in the area and wants a job. But you look around your shop, and all your other employees are white men. So you tell Mr. NASCAR “no” and hire a less experienced Hispanic man. Your shop now has diversity, but you have a less-expereinced, not-as-good employee.
Could the more experienced applicant sue you? Maybe.
The same thing happened at the New York Times. One applicant for an editor’s position was perfectly qualified. He’d worked as an editor before for a large city publication. He came with perfect credentials. But, after an initial interview, he did not advance to the final selection round. He was a white male. The Times said that other candidates would help them meet the ‘diversity goals’ for their newsroom.
This, of course, is an insult – especially in the news business. If your goal is fair and impartial coverage, it shouldn’t matter if the news stories are being edited by a white male or a lesbian female black woman. Journalistic standards still apply. Are the facts correct? Are the people who were interviewed for the story quoted correctly? Is the story impartial? Does the reader get a fair representation of what happened?
The passed-over editor filed a complaint. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took the case, and now they’ve filed a federal lawsuit.
The Times should indeed have to defend its diversity-above-all-other-things hiring practices. I predict that under the legal microscope, the idea that skin color is more important that qualifications won’t stand up under scrutiny.
Chris Conley
Comments