I don't know what happened to my comment, but I posted something along these lines.
You are kidding right?
Where would firstlook be without Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden? Affirmative action is great, but this is absolutely ridiculous.
To clarify, there's nothing wrong with having a strong policy to counter-act "normal" discrimination. What is wrong is explicitly discriminating against a group of people, regardless of who they are.
This reminds me of some radical feminist fractions who say most books are not worth reading because they are written by dead, white, males [no citation]. It's absolutely true that white males are unfairly dominating the classics section, but the way to combat this is not to blacklist them. That's a recipe for disaster, and I'm quite certain Simone de Beauvoir would agree with me.
EDIT: Since this will be part of the discussion, it's important to understand what affirmative action is. Here's the definition from Wikipedia: policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination.
It's about positive discrimination of disadvantaged groups, not elimination of advantaged groups.
EDIT 2: This topic has been flagged already, but I'm writing this for future reference. What this seems to imply is that if a new Greenwald or Snowden comes along, they are explicitly not welcome. This is not affirmative action at all, it's just an unreflected usage of it, without understanding the true
meaning or function of affirmative action.
An organization with such an attitude will eventually die. I hope this was just a poorly worded reply from an individual that doesn't reflect how firstlook actually deals with these things.
> EDIT 2: This topic has been flagged already, but I'm writing this for future reference. What this seems to imply is that if a new Greenwald or Snowden comes along, they are explicitly not welcome. This is not affirmative action at all, it's just an unreflected usage of it, without understanding the true meaning or function of affirmative action.
Go back and read the question. You're perpetuating a narrative that takes his words out of context. The question was asked if there was anything they were specifically looking for. He said yes, people who are not white males. They are already mostly white males and they want to write something that is less from the perspective of mostly white males.
That is affirmative action. You have the definition correct.
Also, what are you trying to do by name dropping Simone de Beauvoir? It doesn't earn you any credibility. It does sound though like you think of yourself as a feminist or at least a supporter of equality if you won't use that label, since you're also creating strawmen feminists (who the hell says most books are not worth reading because they're written by men? Please tell me about which feminist scholar or author wrote about that). Read things more critically before you promote a narrative established by taking things out of context to pretend that First Look is discriminating against white straight men by being a bunch of white straight men and not trying to become MORE white straight men while not explicitly ruling that out at all.
This is what affirmative action is. They are not outright saying NO to white males, they are specifically looking for people who are not white males though, considering they already hired mostly white males. Read the comment he replied to. They did not say that they will not hire white males, because that would be ridiculous, considering that they are already mostly white males.
Did you read the question? Because in context, it really DOESN'T look like they're saying that. I can't believe people are accusing an organization that is MOSTLY white males of discriminating against white males!
Q: Are there particulars attributes or beats you’re looking to fill
And I want to add also into the mix another aspect I feel is relevant: we are talking about journalism. In the field of journalism (and writing in general), there is incentive to represent bold and challenging ideas. It is clear that they have the white male perspective covered. From that viewpoint, it seems fair that they would seek to cover their bases with journalists who speak from other cultural backgrounds.
If that is part of his reasoning, I rather agree with the sentiment.
Affirmative action as it is implemented in the US simply states that if two candidates on paper have the same qualifications then choose the minority candidate.
The reasoning is that it counters a pre-existing bias towards non-minorities and/or women.
Membership in a group doesn't preclude discrimination against that group.
Total count:
- 9 white males
- 2 black males
- 4 females
- 1 unknown
What strikes me as odd is that at a ratio of 9:6 (or 10:6/9:7), they have completely excluded an entire segment of candidates just to bring their ethnic and gender quotas more in line with what they'd like to see. The fact that it's discrimination is obvious, but whether or not that's bad is another question. If they are just doing so to make their office look more diverse for the sake of diversity, I would personally consider that to be bad business and ethically questionable.
If they're trying to promote a broader scope of cultural experience in their writers, then perhaps it's better to discriminate based on experience, not ethnicity. If they think that women write inherently differently than men, then they have bigger problems related to sexism.
> Membership in a group doesn't preclude discrimination against that group.
No, but groups generally don't discriminate against themselves when they are the majority and hold the positions of authority?
> If they're trying to promote a broader scope of cultural experience in their writers, then perhaps it's better to discriminate based on experience, not ethnicity.
> broader scope of cultural experience
> not ethnicity
Care to define "cultural experience" and how it differs from ethnicity?
> they have completely excluded an entire segment of candidates
If you're going to carry on with that narrative, would you explain why you don't agree with my above rejection of such narrative? They are not excluding, they are valuing diversity since they have a lack of it.
It was pointed out already: A firm started by Glenn Greenwald and edited by "John Cook" who I am assuming is as white as snow, putting discriminatory standards as their lead qualifiers.
Best comment so far. If his intention was to say "Diverse staff; we are looking for new and varied backgrounds and cultures to cover our stories", he should have said something along those lines to avoid the expected (and justified) "WTF" of saying they aren't accepting any more "privileged" positions.
Or maybe we white males should just rest assured that we aren't being discriminated against, especially not by an organization of mostly white males, and think more carefully before we post things like this to HN. You knew exactly how people would interpret it, but you chose to ignore the context in which the question was asked.
Nick Manes 14 Apr 2014 at 12:20 pm
Are there particulars attributes or beats you’re looking to fill for as you staff up with reporters?
John Cook 14 Apr 2014 at 12:34 pm
Not white. Not male. Fast. Interested in reporting as a live, iterative process that plays out on the internet as well as one where you go away for six weeks and come back with 4,000 words. Eager to make a name for themselves. Beat-wise, intelligence and national security are obviously important to us at the initial stages, but I’m more interested in good capable people who can apply their skills to all manner of stories than subject-area experts.
The link is to a specific comment that the author replies to.
Someone asks:
"Are there particulars attributes or beats you’re looking to fill for as you staff up with reporters?"
and he replies:
"Not white. Not male. Fast. Interested in reporting as a live, iterative process that plays out on the internet as well as one where you go away for six weeks and come back with 4,000 words. Eager to make a name for themselves. Beat-wise, intelligence and national security are obviously important to us at the initial stages, but I’m more interested in good capable people who can apply their skills to all manner of stories than subject-area experts."
So, what, you want us to save our outrage for situations where it's actually warranted? That sounds un-American as well as un-internet. (But maybe it sounds very HN.)
I don't agree with that premise though. I agree you would end up with a complement of capable employees but it doesn't address culturally-embedded, systemic discrimination. That is what affirmative action is designed to address. I presume to respect your intellect, so I am sure you are aware that access to quality education is problematic for various ethnic and racial groups in the United States (and beyond - but I am specifically addressing affirmative action).
John Cook has a bit of a cowboy/male bravado writing style which I don't think really fits stylistically with First Look/the Intercept but he also did interesting things at Gawker
> Malcolm Pollack 14 Apr 2014 at 2:33 pm
> “Not white”? “Not male”?
> How about “No Irish need apply”?
> Imagine if you announced that you were looking to fill job openings, but didn’t want any women or blacks.
> That this can be done so openly, so blithely — and that it is considered not an act of unconscionable bigotry and race war, but rather as a badge of honor — is very ominous indeed.
> Ralph Thayer 14 Apr 2014 at 3:27 pm
> “Not white. Not male.”
> Noted.
> BubbaMustafa 14 Apr 2014 at 5:56 pm
> So you hate whites and males? That’s a blatant discriminatory statement. You have shown your true colors. Way to go!
> LitThom 14 Apr 2014 at 6:04 pm
> “Not white. Not male.”
> That is just wrong. I mean we all get you, and I agree with a strong approach to diversity, but that is just wrong.
> Will Cate 14 Apr 2014 at 8:02 pm
> re “Not white. Not male.”
> Thanks for letting us know that this is not an operation to be taken seriously.
> JOC 14 Apr 2014 at 8:35 pm
> It’s so hip to discourage employment of white males, especially if you are one (and already have a newsroom full of them.) #johncook’swhiteguilt
> JOC 14 Apr 2014 at 8:49 pm
> It’s so hip to discourage employment of white males, especially if you are one (and have a newsroom full of them).#johncookswhiteguilt speaks in terse, serious language.
As a minority, I understand how these people feel; as a minority, it does however also bother me that these people react in such a reflexive manner. It is such a small percentage of times where people like that experience any sort of discrimination. Frankly, if I reacted in this reflexive manner every time I faced some mode of discrimination, the people I surround myself with would find me to be an insufferable, whiney brat.
Strong language, perhaps, but I can think of no other way to characterize how I would be perceived in analogous circumstances.
But hopefully, you do find ways to point out that this is not OK. I mean, it's not OK when it's done to a minority because of them being a minority. When it's done to white males because an outfit wants more diversity... meh, I can't get too excited about it, even though I'm white and male.
Don't become an insufferable whiny brat. But don't stop trying to find effective ways to call out racism when you run into it, either.
I really appreciate your sentiment. I will say this (and again I do agree with you): bigotry of varying degrees is so common and so engrained in society that if I were to bother to recognize its presence consistently, it would quickly become unsustainable.
I do try and find ways to point out the "not okay" aspects of situations when I can, but it is rare. Here, for example, I took a leap of faith in the HN community for it to be okay for me to criticize the knee-jerk reactions of the aforementioned respondees to the original post. For me, it's just such a "weak" reaction for said people to complain in some rare, ambiguous case that in no way relates to them personally, about discrimination against white males. "Weak" is really the only word I can come up with right now.
You are kidding right?
Where would firstlook be without Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden? Affirmative action is great, but this is absolutely ridiculous.
To clarify, there's nothing wrong with having a strong policy to counter-act "normal" discrimination. What is wrong is explicitly discriminating against a group of people, regardless of who they are.
This reminds me of some radical feminist fractions who say most books are not worth reading because they are written by dead, white, males [no citation]. It's absolutely true that white males are unfairly dominating the classics section, but the way to combat this is not to blacklist them. That's a recipe for disaster, and I'm quite certain Simone de Beauvoir would agree with me.
EDIT: Since this will be part of the discussion, it's important to understand what affirmative action is. Here's the definition from Wikipedia: policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination.
It's about positive discrimination of disadvantaged groups, not elimination of advantaged groups.
EDIT 2: This topic has been flagged already, but I'm writing this for future reference. What this seems to imply is that if a new Greenwald or Snowden comes along, they are explicitly not welcome. This is not affirmative action at all, it's just an unreflected usage of it, without understanding the true meaning or function of affirmative action.
An organization with such an attitude will eventually die. I hope this was just a poorly worded reply from an individual that doesn't reflect how firstlook actually deals with these things.