The New York Times Continues To Be A Parody Of Itself

Cut and paste

I am a white woman who was recently promoted to a high-level administrative position in my school district. At the same time, highly experienced and qualified Black women were displaced from their leadership positions. While the school district is requiring all employees to address issues of race and equity, our hiring practices do not reflect these values. I am challenged by my decision to continue to hold my leadership role and my position in the midst of these conflicting messages, actions and values. What can I do to address these inconsistencies and this discrimination?

---

I’m sure you’re feeling guilty about how you may have unfairly benefited from your employer’s actions. But the district (including all the kids who go to school there) is better off with you in a leadership role than it would be with someone who didn’t care about discrimination. And your leaving, obviously, won’t make the district hire or promote more Black women. So I don’t want you to quit this job.

That’s if you plan to actually do something to improve the situation, of course. Spoiler: You have to. Because if you don’t, all of the power that comes with a senior role and being white will go to waste.

But before I get into what “doing something” might look like, I want to remind you that you are definitely not the only person looking around after last year’s big summer of “racial reckoning” and asking whether anything has actually changed, aside from a training or public statement here and there. Enrica Ruggs, the director of the University of Memphis’s Center for Workplace Diversity and Inclusion, told me this is quite common. “We’re seeing a lot of virtue signaling, which is not in and of itself a bad thing,” she said. “But you can’t just say, ‘We fixed this one thing one time and now we’re antiracist.’ You have to make sure you’re intentionally trying to reduce discrimination and increase inclusion.” Many institutions, she said, have not.

You’re right to be upset. Dr. Ruggs reminded me that while discrimination is obviously most harmful to its targets, it takes a toll on overall morale and productivity in a workplace and hurts bystanders who observe it, too. That means you. (In one article, she compared the effects of witnessing racial bias to exposure to secondhand smoke.)

So don’t approach this as raising a fuss or filing a complaint on behalf of the Black women who were displaced. Instead, remind yourself that it’s part of your job as a high-level administrator to make the school district better and stronger — which means making sure that experienced and qualified people are rewarded for their work. This is your fight, too.

First order of business: You need to get the facts. You say that these Black women were “displaced.” It’s not clear whether you mean they were fired, demoted or reassigned to less attractive senior positions. But in any case, you should try to find out why. It sounds like you suspect that discrimination, unintentional or otherwise, was a factor in the way management treated these women. Though you will probably never know for sure, you should get as much information as you can.

After you’ve done that, set up a virtual coffee with the most senior person you can reach to call attention to the tension you see between what the district is saying about racism and what it’s doing. Your script for starting that conversation is, “So, I’ve noticed that we care about racial justice and equity but we fired all the Black women.” (OK, not literally that, but you should confront them with the facts you’ve uncovered, head-on.) This will most likely be followed by a silence so long and awkward that it makes you wonder if your colleague hit mute by mistake. But just let it sink in. Dr. Ruggs said, “Sometimes these organizations are not even comparing their words to actions and seeing misalignment.” Although you’re likely to hear, “We can’t discuss the details of personnel matters,” you should feel free to diplomatically ask for an explanation.

But Dr. Ruggs suggests that you be forward-looking. Don’t just speak up about things that have already gone awry, also push to change hiring practices so that any discrimination that’s built into the system is minimized. Ask: “When we’re going into hiring decisions, how can we use practices that we know help to reduce discrimination? What are the systems that we’re going to use to reduce the chance of even getting to a point where we see these inconsistencies between our proclaimed values and our actions?”

These are a few concrete changes that you can propose:

When it comes to interviewing, ask all candidates the same questions in the same order. (“That way you’re not giving some people more opportunities to shine,” Dr. Ruggs said.) Editors’ Picks In ‘Mr. Corman,’ Joseph Gordon-Levitt Looks Inward and Asks, ‘What If?’ Think Sustainability Is Simple? This Sheep Farmer Would Like a Word. She Was Music’s Greatest Teacher. And Much More. Continue reading the main story

Use structured metrics when you’re evaluating candidates — decide what you’ll be looking for and how much various qualities will be weighed and scored before you do any interviews. (“Too often we look at how a person makes us feel and whether they ‘fit,’ and we know that thinking of fit leads to bias,” Dr. Ruggs said.)

Make interviews as “blind” as possible, concealing names and other information that might suggest a candidate’s race or gender. (“The research shows that people have negative-biases names that sound ethnic. They see ‘Enrica’ and that sounds Black. People would evaluate that lower than ‘Emily,’” Dr. Ruggs said.)

Organize others who feel secure in their roles (probably white people, given the district’s track record) to help advocate these changes and also to hold the district accountable if, after some time, you’re not seeing results. I realize that small process tweaks seem very dry and underwhelming, especially compared with the emotion and drama of the big antiracism statements that so many institutions have made, and the pain of discrimination — to say nothing of the pain of the people who’ve already been affected.

But talking about reducing racism doesn’t mean anything without concrete actions. Use the security that you feel comes with your seniority and whiteness to make people uncomfortable with the way things are and suggest some fixes. Push your district to be the kind of place where you’re proud to work and where Black people can get and keep the jobs they deserve.

From the comments -- a top reader reply:

[quote]It frightens me that this article isn’t satire.

Several months ago, a (gay white) guy I followed closed his Instagram account "to give more space to (trans) and people of color."

This is a question I ask myself constantly.

By and large, the reader comments are critical

[quote]What Should I Do With My White Privilege at Work?

Take the money and run?

I love the NYTimes.

Pretty sure it was Amy Poehler but back in the day somebody on Weekend Update summarized the Martha Stewart scandal, once it was evident that for her sins she was off to the joint.

"But don't feel too sorry for Martha, because if the shoe was on the other foot, she wouldn't feel sorry for you."

I had not looked at the comments but yes, they are indeed largely mocking and critical.

The alleged "letter" itself is troubling in that the writer does not explain what she means when she says Black women were "displaced"

Did they get fired? Moved to different offices? Different departments? Did they not want to move offices or departments?

She mostly seems determined to downplay her own abilities.

Democrats have such a wide open lane--and no less than Bernie Sanders has even identified it: stop talking about Black vs White and start talking about Rich vs Poor, about the massive gaps in economic opportunity for people who are not in the top 15%-20%, regardless of what race they are.

And yet we keep blowing it.

Maybe all the “ Black” women were fakers and not really black.

I work in an office where two spectacularly unqualified black straight women hold senior management positions. They are both not only incompetent but just awful, petty people. But at least the organization can claim diversity.

In OP’s cartoon, do both of those guys have man buns?!

R5 What a LIE

Also, this is a non issue. Nobody cares about an OPINION piece from the NYT.

There is a concerted multi-national effort by the Right wing to push these non-issues. They find some people on the “left” to give them an assist and for sure amplify the few voices on the left who constantly harp on these issues. Privilege is real, but this is being used to make it seem that the Left wants people to give up their jobs and shit to POC. Ridiculous.

R13 oh please already.

Because white straight people never get jobs they aren’t qualified for. Spare me the bullshit. They’re the main ones!

The "New York Times Pitchbot" satire account on Twitter is hilarious, because it's so painfully close to the truth.

R13 How AWFUL! I’ve NEVER met extremely unqualified white people in any place I’ve worked. Gosh, what is this world coming to?

It's interesting to me how white privilege is being interpreted in the comments. Some are made defensive by the idea they had material advantages by being white and feel as if they are being told or asked to surrender what they have in life because of it. Some are interpreting white privilege as the definition of disadvantage to people of color because of their color: they are questioned about their right to be any number of things, including places. That, to me, is what white privilege means: white people move with more ease - or at least the least disadvantage - of all skin colors.

The bigger issue is the phrase, which is misunderstood and divisive, like so much of the language around "progress." Too many Progressives cannot resist the temptation to finger wag and condescend. Most of their ideas are right. Most of their goals should be realized. But they seem hellbent on ensuring it takes longer by creating division and hard feeling.

[quote]stop talking about Black vs White and start talking about Rich vs Poor,

The corporate driven media would never allow it.

Didn't the eviction moratorium expire last night, BTW? I saw more think pieces on Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis this week than on that BTW.

The rich have us fighting each other while they amass power in the form of wealth. The greatest threat to democracy is so much wealth in the hands of so few.

NYT? Not even reading the threads. The headline is enough. I loathe the NYT because it pretends to be liberal while subverting liberalism.

If politicians start talking about it, the "corporate driven media" will cover it R18

And we need to do it ASAP because you know who is going down that path and talking about Rich vs Poor? Populist GOP politicians like Josh Hawley (and that's "populist" NOT "popular")

R19, that whole "Stop talking about race, and keep talking about economic anxiety" is such bullshit, and is totally why the White Progressive movement keeps losing. Until you realize that the rich vs poor divide is kept in place by systemic racism, and you can't address one without the other, you're always going to lose, and always going to come off as a racist twit.

[quote] There is a concerted multi-national effort by the Right wing to push these non-issues.

I know. It's obvious the right-wing is the one promoting these ideas by getting them published in the ... checks notes ... New York Times?

[quote]Populist GOP politicians like Josh Hawley (and that's "populist" NOT "popular")

You left out POPULIST politicians like Bernie and Nina Turner... who aren't even remotely progressive. They're just Left-Populist, the flip side of the same coin as Trumpsters and Hawleys and the rest.

Don't get suckered by populism. And don't dismiss systemic racism as the core issue even in most economic arguments.

[quote] Until you realize that the rich vs poor divide is kept in place by systemic racism,

ALSO R23 "My senior thesis at Bennington was an exploration of male constructs in 1950s Westerns..."

ALSO R23 "I just got funding for my documentary on male constructs in 1950s Westerns..... yes, he's my father."

It’s really is about rich and poor, not race. But racial anxieties keep the public’s attention off the real issue.

[quote] Until you realize that the rich vs poor divide is kept in place by systemic racism, and you can't address one without the other, you're always going to lose, and always going to come off as a racist twit.

So when are we going to address the other, dipshit?

We had a minimum wage fight a couple of months back. Where was the media the week it was going up for debate in Congress? Giving us wall to wall coverage on Meghan Markle's battles with the Royal Family. (Of which you were probably writing essay long diatribes on) Because that was clearly the most pressing concern among average Americans who were trying to survive a pandemic and who hadn't even been vaccinated at that point.

The average person is primarily concerned with earning enough to live on at this moment and having a roof over their heads. Yes, racial divides are a part of that, but the longer the media keeps ignoring the HUGE elephant in the room, the longer every other issue the media brings up will just seem like smokescreening to protect corporate interests.

R25 we all know systemic racism is a huge part of the income and wealth inequality we seem, but is is also just good old fashion greed and power.

I cannot understand how ANYONE falls for ANY republican spewing shit about economics. They’ve ONLY given tax cuts to the rich and cut their regulations so they can exploit Billy Bob and Cletus.

Two things can be true at once, but the race component is not more true than the overall inequality component. Loads of white people aren't thriving either. They get shot at less but other than that, inequality is an equal opportunity life fucker.

R30 Not equal opportunity by any means. But, it is a system that does take advantage of everyone. POC and women get fucked in this system far more frequently. It is a system set up for White, Christian Males.

The entire left is just a right wing conspiracy at this point.

See, no, it isn't a system "set up for" today's white, Christian males. That's who benefits in the main today. But the system is a remnant of an old taken for grantedness that yes, set up a system for white, Christian males (and a good number of Catholics) because they were in control. And that's not right and it should not stand and we should take our comparatively recent understanding of the depth and extent of it and move toward change.

But this insistence in the language of blame today for the sins of yesteryear just gets in the fucking way because it pisses everybody off. We cannot undo what is done. We cannot take the blame for what people thought one and three and five hundred years ago. We can only move forward. And there is a choice. Do we move forward together in a spirit of fairness with as many people as possible or should we drag it out while the venting continues? I get the basis for the venting. But it gets in the way. So what do you want? Because I can promise, the harder it's made, the longer it will take.

I just read the book, the Whiteness of Wealth. The author seems to think all white people are wealthy, or at the very least, own homes in desirable neighborhoods. The arguments seemed to point more towards “wealthy people can give their kids a significant financial leg up and this ensures each subsequent generation has advantages.” Not really about race, though.

Neither that book nor the similar The Color of Law address the issue of having more children than you can afford, though both books use examples of poor black with several kids without commenting on aspect. I grew up midde class with a friend who was one of five kids and another friend with no siblings. Guess who is doing the best financially? The only child who inherited everything.

I never wanted children so maybe it’s hard for me to relate, but I don’t understand how people have kids when they cannot even support themselves. It doesn’t seem fair to the kids.

That should be, “poor black single women and couples.”

Anyway, both worth reading if only to understand the current mindset.

[quote]a system for white, Christian males (and a good number of Catholics)

Catholics [italic]are[/italic] Christians.

Christians include Protestants, Catholics, Coptic Christians, Russian Orthodox members, Greek Orthodox members, Mormons, and several other sects as well. They all believe Jesus (Yeshua bar-Joseph) was the Christ, or the Messiah.

R34, well, one reason is access to birth control or abortion, for that matter. Think how many gay men around here whine about it feeling better without the condom.

Poorer people are less likely to have benefits, drug plans, access to care so, given that people have sex, they are more likely to have more children.

On the same thing, the "structural racism" in the system makes it easier, based on prejudice, for white people to qualify for mortgages, to earn toward downpayment, to maintain a house in good order. Or at least harder for colored people to do it. How schools are funded is another thing. Schools in poor neighbourhoods suck in part for lack of funding. If you make crap or face sporadic employment or a series of part time jobs to make ends meet it is harder and harder to maintain a middle class lifestyle at any point on the spectrum, let alone build up to one to begin with.

I wrote R33. I am no equity leftist. I think one of the biggest barriers to structural reforms are the well intentioned, utterly unhelpful asses braying for it and the divisive, blamey things they like to bray that make a lot of people just scowl, shrug, and say whatever. No one sells anything by insulting the buyer.

Nonetheless, there are a lot of structures in place, through lack of understanding and prejudice, that make it harder for those who want to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stand on their own two feet to do it.

Yes, alright, R36, I hope the parsing substitutes for an erection. Or gives you one. We're all on the same, important page now.....

Guess you're a little tetchy today, huh r38?

[quote]we all know systemic racism is a huge part of the income and wealth inequality

Meanwhile in the US, Asian and Indian median income is higher than whites.

Asians $87,243

Whites $65,902

So quit with the bullshit.

We cancelled our NYT subscription a year ago. It was like going cold turkey. Serious withdrawal. I was fed up with the absurd articles and silly editorial pieces posing as news. To top it off, they've dumbed down the crossword puzzles to make everybody feel smart. So we went to The Guardian, Washington Post, and LA Times. LAT is useless, but my husband likes the CA coverage. The Guardian USA has now dumbed itself down to NYT level. Wapo is ok.

Thanks for this thread. I like being reminded of how glad I am I cancelled.

PS. It was downhill from the day they cancelled William Hamilton's cocktail column.

Hi, I just wanted to insult the artwork in the thumbnail. It’s ugly as shit and I hope nobody got paid for it.

Blaming our current economic inequality on white people or a system that favors white people is a losing argument, regardless of any merit it may have.

The gap between the top 20% of Americans and everyone else means that around 80% of white people do not feel in any way privileged or advantaged, even though other white people may be.

They're also watching non-white Asians--mostly Chinese, Koreans and Indians, rapidly ascend to the upper middle classes and thus the argument makes even less sense to them.

So let's just pick a winning argument (economic inequality) and get buy-in on that.

off topic but close: a friend's daughter (30s) works for a very woke ad agency in NYC. She must juggle three different pronoun preferences and daily has co-workers tell her she's hurt their feelings. Co-workers also go to HR to tattle. Daughter now says she prefers workplace misogyny to the new woke environment. I'm so glad I'm old.

Also adding to R43 that the conventional wisdom is that people like R23 whining about White Privilege are all from very privileged backgrounds and have already taken advantage of said white privilege--degrees from top schools, houses in $$$ areas and lots of money in the bank.

So it's easy for them to tell other white people to give up their privilege or to support reparations because if you're worth $15MM, then a one-time $20K payment is not all that painful.

r41 one reason I prefer the Washington Post is that they're more likely to leave the comment section open

[quote]Daughter now says she prefers workplace misogyny to the new woke environment.

LOL.

You CANNOT solve income inequality without addressing systemic racism, and anyone who claims you can, is a fucking white supremacist.

[quote]Blaming our current economic inequality on white people or a system that favors white people is a losing argument, regardless of any merit it may have.

Um... it's the total reason, it's the truth, and if you can't acknowledge that, you'll never solve the problem.

It's easy to tell who REALLY wants to solve the problem by who acknowledges that systemic white supremacy must be addressed as part of the solution. Those who deny racial inequality and white supremacy and claim everything is 'economic anxiety' are all just white supremacists themselves, who have no clue how to actually solve the problem. They're clearly okay with leaving minorities in the rear-view mirror.

What's amazing to me his how laughably wrong R26 is, yet that asshole got six W&Ws in this thread. Pathetic.

[quote]You CANNOT solve income inequality without addressing systemic racism...

Median income:

Asians: $87,243

Blacks: 43,862

Oh those white supremist Asians!

I didn't and don't plan to read the article but there is nothing wrong with the headline. This is a legitimate question people should be asking themselves in the year 2021. I mean, the so-called WOKE CULTURE goes too far, but if you have a knee-jerk reaction to all attempts to acknowledge and redress systemic racism, then the problem is probably you.

R51 advances a debunked talking point pushed by white supremacists to try and deny white supremacy. You're unmasked, dude. Or should I say, un-hooded?

[quote}They're clearly okay with leaving minorities in the rear-view mirror.

Minorities in the rear-view mirror?

Median household income:

Indian Americans : 135,809

Cambodian Americans: 72,038

Chinese Americans: 85,424

Filipino Americans: 100,273

Pakistani Americans 87,509

Iranian Americans 87,288

Turkish Americans 83,375

Systemic Racism. White supremacy...blah...blah...blah....

Gay man here. Two years ago, I was denied a contract renewal at my miserable university teaching job. This was after years of adjuncting and barely making it each month. It was explained to me in an incredibly condescending email that for equality to occur, people 'like me' might have to get lost in the shuffle in order to make way for new voices: 'for their dream to come true, maybe yours can't.' They also included, by accident, a long email chain of yakking discussion of my identity as a gay cis male. Dumb.

That was a very costly mistake. It deprived them of a hefty cash settlement and I love my new life. I have more money and security than I ever had while teaching, I'm no longer chronically unhappy and stuck around other negative types, and I've gone to trade school so that when I do go back to work, it'll be something lucrative, in-demand, and less batshit insane than a university.

Dipshits.

[quote]advances a debunked talking point...

Debunked? No idiot. Those are income FACTS provided by the US government.

But keep on whining. Since that's all you know how to do.

r53: "r51 advances a debunked talking point pushed by white supremacists to try and deny white supremacy."

Wikipedia seems to say otherwise, R53.

R54 spends a lot of time on FOX News, Newsmax, and OAN.

And some of you don't understand the meaning of a "debunked talking point"... not that the figure cited is wrong, but that your assumption of what it means is wrong. Dumbasses. All of you. WTF is wrong with you? This site has too many Republicans and Republican-wannabees.

[quote]spends a lot of time on FOX News, Newsmax, and OAN.

The figures come from the US government. Not "FOX News, Newsmax, and OAN."

[quote]And some of you don't understand the meaning of a "debunked talking point"... not that the figure cited is wrong, but that your assumption of what it means is wrong.

No. Your assumptions of what it means is wrong.

"And some of you don't understand the meaning of a "debunked talking point"... not that the figure cited is wrong, but that your assumption of what it means is wrong."

Methinks I detect a hint of the Boris

So, again, I'll ask, when is the news media going to cover the need for healthcare for all and the fight for minimum wage with the intensity that they cover Jeff Bezos trip to space or Meghan Markle?

dumdum at r61. are you a fucking idiot? you don't watch news? they love that shit. you gotta get out of the DL, dumbfuck.

R62 Yale or Harvard?

Not sure I've heard anyone get called a "dumdum" since first grade

Neither have I.

But then, I haven't conversed with any inbreds.

you don't need to, r65. you're a product of them.

Sit down Boris R66. The redneck impersonation is wearing thin.

Calm down, Natasha r66. We can smell your rotten Russian crotch all the way from Minsk. Slutpublican.

How are there subscriptions? Trump always said he was keeping them alive. I do remember them struggling before he got elected. He might have been right.

Interestingly, the racial income gap is mostly in the top ten percent. Rich white people have more money than rich black people, but this is less true for the remaining 90 percent. Of course, this suggests a vastly different course of action than reparations.

That is the most important piece too R70

Thanks for the the link

I'm hiding and F&Fing every single poster who calls someone else "Boris."

I'm sick of that shit.

Excellent article about the wealth gap between races. The NYT reads like the Onion (when it was funny) some days.

Skimming this thread caused my IQ to drop 20 points. I cannot imagine what happens when you read it.

[quote]While the school district is requiring all employees to address issues of race and equity, our hiring practices do not reflect these values.

She might want to hire a consulting firm to investigate HR hiring practices to determine why it's so hard for a Black woman to get promoted in her district.

Or she could she could just write a performance piece for the New York Times. Her choice, really.