Asymmetrical Information

I vaguely point out that the crimes which set off this whole episode of breast-beating would most likely not even have warranted an internal reprimand here in the Greatest Newspaper Market On Earth [tm]. You read about far worse lifting and quote-polishing in Private Eye every couple of weeks (Robert Fisk detractors, buy the current issue; it's got an absolute pearl in it).

I try not to conclude from Sulzberger's disgusting grovelling that the American public has got exactly the self-righteous, prissy, cowardly press it wants, but it gets harder every day. Why doesn't somebody prevail on Rupert Murdoch to give you folks a proper newspaper?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for apologies.

Do you post apologies when you're wrong?

WWhen I've falsely accused people of being racists, I do.

The New York Times has been officially lying for decades. Have we already forgotten news reporter Walter Duranty’s deceit regarding the Soviet Union’s show trials and deliberate starvation of the farmers? I am a very fair man and concede that the New York Times was unaware of Duranty’s lies when he initially received his Pulitzer Prize. However, why didn’t they return the Pulitzer once the evidence of fraud was overwhelming? This failure to do the right thing subtly informed the Jayson Blairs that obtaining the Pulitzer and other prestigious awards is deemed more important than journalist integrity. This now disgraced young man was simply following in the grand tradition of his newspaper.

I haven't kept up with the whole story, because I find nothing more tedious than obsessive Times bashing. But, just because their opinions were vindicated doesn't mean that the immediate beliefs that of course the writer's race was part of the problem weren't still questionable. To put it another way, you can be both racist and right. (Or to put it yet another way, even very questionable conclusions sometimes turn out to be true.)

If a woman shows up dead, murdered in some nasty way, and someone jumps up and immediately says "Well of course the murderer must be a black man," that's a questionable assumption and possibly racist, even if it turns out that the murderer was, in fact, a black man.

Anyway, I think you'd have to look at comments on a case by case basis. How bad or sweeping were the accusations of racism or criticisms of the jumping to conclusions, and what were the specific comments that drew those charges?

Fair enough, Doug. The problem for with affirmative actions, especially as practiced and promoted by the New York Times (which editorially has stated many times that race should be taken into account), is that it makes such accusations inherently plausible.

Compare the edge from affirmative action to something like nepotism, or having the right friends or network. If the boss's son is hired, gets promoted for a while, and then fails spectacularly-- people are going to suspect nepotism as the culprit.

The racial bonus in affirmative action is usually not as strong as a nepotism bonus, but it's still there. In addition, while someone can try to get away from the stigma by not working for Daddy's company, a black person can't change the color of his skin, and affirmative action is a nationwide phenomenon. (Consider also Mickey Kaus's Alabama fans analogy, or the real life resentment of the Harvard Crimson staffers' network in political writing by Virginia Postrel and others.)

One of the inherent problems with affirmative action is that it legitimizes a viewpoint that would otherwise be only held by racists. When other factors are involved in the hiring process than pure competency in the position, it's reasonable to assume that some people will be hired with less preparation than those who were hired without considering those special factors. It transforms race into a version of the old boys' network, with all the resenment and blame that comes with it.

It seems to me that the biggest problem at NYT is poor management practices. According to a report I saw, NYT senior management appointed Blair to the sniper case without informing his new immediate supervisor about the prior problems with his reporting. This is inexcusable..it left the new supervisor is a position where he was relatively unable to protect the quality reporting which it was his responsibility to protect. It is irresponsible elitism for senior management to meddle in operational details while at the same time withholding information which they possess.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Colin Powell (by his own admission) benefit from affirmative action ? If he did, what exactly does that prove about affirmative action ?

I'd say Colin Powell's case says a lot more about Colin Powell taking advantage of the opportunities life presented him than it does in making some broad statement for or against affirmative action.

In similar fashion, I'd say that Jayson Blair's case says a lot more about Jayson Blair bunging up the opportunities life presented to him than it does in broadly condemning affirmative action.

Cheers,

But Jane -- falsely accusing people of being racists is liberal SOP. If they stopped slandering the GOP as wanting to starve kids, kill seniors, deliberately poison the environment, killing off soldiers and foreign citizens in pursuit of profit, and being general, all-round vicious, nasty, hate-filled, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist neanderthals, they'd be completely lost.

Without the slander, they'd have nothing to say.

As I said in the previous post, Jayson Blair's problems don't necessarily indict AA. But I do think that they indict it the way it was apparently practiced at the Times, which is to say markedly different standards for blacks that kept them from dealing with a major problem.

Re: JOhn Thacker's response to me, I agree with all the points you make about AA. It definitely has some real and pernicious costs associated with it. I'm kind of neutral on it as a program because I think that, for one thing in most cases it doesn't have that great of an effect either way. And second, I think there still is a plausible justification on the grounds of trying to make up for past and present racism and inequities.

Anyway, my comment was more on the side met-issue about debates, accusations, and whether anyone should give an apology for their past arguments. (A claim--that group X owes us an apology--that has become a distressingly common rhetorical ploy in the blogosphere and elswhere, and which in general I don't care for.) 20-20 hindsight is nice, but it doesn't make past concerns illegitimate.

jane let's slow down, affirmative action is the hiring of qualified minorities (and powell was a beneficiary of the action, as was the nation; no one doubts Powell's qualifications).

jason blair wasn't qualified for the national desk (he had neither the skills nor experience), rather he was howell raines' negro (a trophy for raines to exhibit from time to time, a prized propety).

jason blair is a victim of raines' own vanity. given the time and experience, blair may have become a first rate journalist. we will never know. he know becomes an additional millstone for african americans, who seek a position in nation's normal discourse.

I haven't really followed this that closely. I do have a question.

It was mentioned, that Mr. Blair came close to losing his job once.
Did he know that? Was it forcefully explained to him?

I have a theory (not original, I've seen parts of it and someone has probably spelled out the whole thing) that's impressionistic and based on anecdotal evidence, but here it is:

Along with everything else, minorities (and often enough, white women) face a "niceness" trap. Substandard performance is overlooked because no one wants to look mean or sexist or racist. No one's liable to worry about the feelings of a young white male and if he screws up, he'll hear about it (and possibly learn from the experience and improve his performance). Women and minorities are less liable to get negative feedback when they need it (and we all need it sometimes). Instead if their performance is substandard, they are (barely) tolerated until they can be diplomatically gotten rid of or shunted into some dead-end position.

I support the ideals of AA in getting qualified minorities (who might have problems getting in otherwise) into the pool where they can sink or swim with everybody else. But coddling a dishonest or incompetent employee does no one any favors.

On an unrelated note, according to a Tom Tomorrow post, the NYT oversight policies were essentially non-existant (and Blair's supervisors were clueless about how investigage him even when they suspected something was up).

Terry Neal has an excellent column on this in today's WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57329-2003May14.html

Just read it.

Affirmative Action has had several definitions. Originally, way back in the JFK era, it meant aggressively expanding outreach pool so that the likelihood of having qualified blacks in the pool would rise. It took into account the occasional disconnect affecting some blacks from the usual channels of finding out about job openings, college admissions, and so forth.
One aspect of AA was the legal requirement to post job openings so that there could be no question of some people finding out about them and others not.
AA has come to mean other things such as race-norming tests so that unqualified minorities' scores look higher than the raw scores.
Colin Powell seems to have been the beneficiary of the earlier form of AA, where his superiors were encouraged to look carefully at black officers rather than dismissing them from consideration for promotion. Recall that to have been superior to Powell in the late Fifties and for the next decade meant having been born roughly about 1930, and raised in that society. Being required to look carefully at black officers was probably a new item for some.
The Army gender-norms physical fitness scores but does not race-norm other types of results. It would be interesting to find out if Powell was promoted anywhere at any time despite demonstrating incompetence a la Blair. My guess is.... NOT.

Rofe wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Colin Powell (by his own admission) benefit from affirmative action?

Really? When did he say that?

If he did, what exactly does that prove about affirmative action?

That it is still a blatantly racist policy regardless of who claims to have benefited from it.

David:

In this world of ours, bad management practices and slipshoddiness are not an argument to defend oneself against accusations of racially biased conduct. In fact, I'd suggest that they are quite the opposite: when things are going well, and people know what their jobs are, they can keep things like race from factoring strongly into their decisions.

When things are messed up, people have skewed criteria and are left to make their own judgements, that's when racial bias has the opportunity to enter the picture, particularly when there's pre-existing racial consciousness. I think the Times had bad management practices, which facilitated racist treatment of Blair (in this case, improperly lenient handling because he was black).

I, for one, suspected employer ineptitude more than overt racial discrimination -- but wow! Wow...obviously ineptitude still has something to do with this case, but wasn't the kind I was thinking of.

You know. . . working in a corporate environment myself, I imagine incompetent management and all the wonders that flow from that have more to do with this fiasco than race. Strikes me as one of those managements where you DON'T tell it what it DOESN'T want to hear - if you want to stay around and get promoted that is. The boss likes this guy, so you don't say anything negative about him.

Surround yourself with yesmen and fiascos ensue. Yet the alpha-males who tend to be in charge never seem to figure this out.

Regarding Thorley's challenge, I'll admit to being in something of a conundrum.

Finding evidence of Sec. Powell's support for affirmative action is easy (see his remarks to the Republican National Convention in 2000 and his comments on the Univ. of Michigan case earlier this year);

Finding support for Sec. Powell having benefited from affirmative action is not difficult (see a Slate column dated 14 December 1997 and references contained therein);

Finding statements that say Sec. Powell says he benefited from affirmative action is also not difficult (see the American Council on Education's website regarding affirmative action); but

Finding a quote from Sec. Powell saying he benefited from affirmative action has not happened.

Unfortunately, I've burned through a chunk of time responding to the challenge (I think it's legitimate), and I don't have more time to pursue the issue further.

Therefore, lacking a quote from Sec. Powell, I'd have to revise my original comment. Nonetheless, any such revision wouldn't change my point.

(I'd supply the links to the articles, but I'm afraid I'd blow up this post. Search under 'Colin Powell Affirmative Action' on Metacrawler and you'll get there quickly enough.)

Cheers,

Robert,

I’m willing to take you at your word that Secretary Powell has said that he has benefited from affirmative action. The only reason I asked when this had happened is that while I was aware that Powell supports it, I had never heard of him saying that he has benefitted from it. I had thought that perhaps you had meant National Security Advisor Condileaza Rice (sp?) who had indicated that she thought she got hired at her professorship job at least partially as a result of her being a black woman.

That being said, in response to your original question about “what does this say about affirmative action” it makes no difference of who it is that “benefits” from this blatantly racist program whether they end up being a plagiarist at the NYT or serving in the highest echelons of political power in the State Department.

Jane is right. Timmy the Wonder Dog is partly right.

Affirmative action is not "the hiring of qualified minorities." It's the hiring of the most qualified minorities you can find, even if they aren't good enough to do the work.

But often they are good enough. Affirmative action gives them incentive not to prove it.

I've looked at Blair's work, and it seems clear that he had the talent to be an extraordinary journalist. I'd hesitate to say he wasn't qualified for the job he held. Problem is, instead of working for what he wanted, he counted on white guilt to put him where he wanted to be.

Without affirmative action, he might have felt some obligation to do quality work. But now we'll never know.

I blogged the story myself, and I think the Blair scandal is a symptom not merely of the illness known as affirmative action, but of the plague known as liberalism.

Don't ya just love when people get all in a tizzy about something that seems very clear cut to you?

Blair likely benefited from affirmative action in being hired. Nothing wrong with that.

Blair either was or became seriously troubled (look at all the personal leave he took), and perhaps he was cut some slack on that pro-diversity-wise. But, before too long, it became apparent that, personal problems or no, he was not meeting journalistic standards to such an extent they could not be excused. HE WAS THEN PROMOTED.

Raines has created an environment of intimidation and favoritism, with many veteran journalists leaving.

Raines now claims that, as a white man from Alabama...he gave Blair one too many chances. BULLSHIT! As an incompetent manager, he gave Blair one too many chances. End of story. He's using affirmative action/diversity as a cover for his dereliction of duty.

Sums up the way Raines sucks.

There will be Blairs in any profession or discipline. If the executives/leaders cannot uphold the standards of field, they fail on their own account. No excuses of lack of communication, diversity, etc., cut it, especially in as clear a case as this.

From what I've heard, the Dude pretty much has it pegged. Additionally, we've read news stories that talk about Blair's skill as a suck-up and ass-kisser.

jane galt wrote: "But I do think that they indict it the way it was apparently practiced at the Times, which is to say markedly different standards for blacks that kept them from dealing with a major problem."

And you're drawing that conclusion from a sample of ONE?

How exactly do you draw a conclusion about 'blacks', plural, from one individual?

Blair is the base case. Find me one other black reporter at the Times who supports your theory of 'markedly different standards for blacks'.

You have to do *at least* that before you have a case to make.

Then, I'll show you two Jewish journalists at the New Republic who committed similar errors. Explain whether that shows 'markedly different standards for Jewish reporters' at TNR. If not, explain the difference.

And no, I'm not an anti-semite. It's just that TNR provides an excellent example of similar journalistic malfeasance, by two people, and they just happen to be of the Jewish minority. If they were Asian, that'd work too, but they're not.

Steve H writes: "Affirmative action is not "the hiring of qualified minorities." It's the hiring of the most qualified minorities you can find, even if they aren't good enough to do the work."

But in this case, it appears that Blair was hired when even more qualified minorities were not.

One of the articles Blair plagiarised was by a Latina, Macarena Hernandez, who had been, with Blair, a summer intern (or similar) at the Times in 1998.

Blair got a trainee job with the Times. Hernandez didn't. She now works at the San Antonio Express-News, and one of her stories was plagiarized by Blair, and she turned him in, so to speak.

I should think that 'Latin American Woman' counts as a minority, and would have aided 'diversity' efforts at the Times.

So it seems that the Times chose one person over another, who probably would have done better.

That suggests to me that it's not *just* about affirmative action. Hell, it could imply sexism. But I find it hard to believe that Blair was the best minority person they could find. (If it was a small paper, maybe. But the Times?)

I would be willing to bet that Blair got hired and better-qualified people - minorities - did not.

I think we all know people who aren't very competent, but manage to schmooze their way to positions higher than their talents merit. Scott Adams has made a career lampooning such people, and Dilbert wouldn't be popular if we all didn't know moronic pointed-haired bosses.

It's unfortunate that if the person happens to be a minority, then it's assumed to be "affirmative action", but if it's some white moron, then it's just assumed to be corporate politics and, apparently, okay.

Once more I point out that this bloke embellished a few stories and lifted a few articles from provincial papers (for God's sakes, what are provincial papers *for*?). Meanwhile, Tom Friedman was happily repeating Kenneth Pollack's lines about massed WMDs while he apparently believed all along that WMDs were irrelevant to the case for war. Etc, etc.

What Mr Blair did wasn't all that bad, and if he'd been working for a proper newspaper it would have resulted in a slap on the wrist, naughty boy, off to the features/commentary desk for you.

Comments are Closed.