Another day, another discussion about race. I know, I know, but it just keeps coming back!
CTRL F ‘WHITE MEN’
I’m not usually one for predictions, and while I tend to lean towards optimism, I can’t help but think that The New York Times might actually be in some serious trouble.
The Trump administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is taking legal action against The New York Times for alleged workplace discrimination. An employee—yes, one who still works there—is collaborating with government lawyers to file a lawsuit claiming that the paper has a bias against white men, suggesting racism is embedded in its hiring practices.
This kind of thing is illegal, by the way. It’s been illegal for decades. One would think the folks at the top might be surprised to find that Civil Rights laws are, well, supposed to be neutral and apply to everyone, including white men and Christians.
What’s particularly outrageous is that The New York Times has practically acknowledged their wrongdoing. In 2021, they went public with a “Call to Action,” pushing for more hiring and promotion of “people of color” and “women.”
The lawsuit is remarkable, mainly because it describes how the paper openly outlined its plans to violate these laws.
Feel free to take a look yourself. The documentation is a bit tricky to locate in mainstream media, particularly because liberal reporters are unlikely to reference the primary source, which is pretty much why this exists.
The lawsuit shows that The New York Times meticulously recorded details about race, gender, and sexual orientation with shocking precision, year after year, for almost a decade. More troubling is that actual bonuses were tied to the hiring of specific groups. Hire a white man? No bonus. Hire a black Latinx transgender individual? Bonuses all around. Internal communications even reveal that management had moments of anxiety about their progress on these fronts.
It’s completely illegal, and they proceeded with it openly.
Taking notes on a criminal conspiracy is one thing, but imagine advertising those notes in an annual report.
It’s not always the overtly malicious individuals you need to worry about. Sometimes it’s those who are misguided and self-righteous that end up causing the most harm.
In a response filled with typical defiance, The New York Times claimed that their hiring practices are based on merit and focused on attracting the best talent available. Their legal team emphasized they would defend their stance vigorously.
Things are even more complicated because, as mentioned, this employee is still with the company and is a member of the union. Reports suggest that other reporters at the paper are racing to figure out who he is, while management is already aware. There’s no doubt he will face scrutiny, and he probably realizes this but seems unlikely to back down.
This employee clearly made a stand. Good for him.
It seems highly probable that this case will go to discovery, which could bring more internal communications into the spotlight. This could be the thread that unravels everything.
If they were open about their plans for demographic tracking, it’s fair to wonder what kinds of conversations were happening behind closed doors.
It’s been said that “white male discrimination cases rule” because of how easy it is to subpoena emails and search for “white men.”
Yikes.
It’s hard to feel sympathy for the situation they find themselves in.
MORE LINKS
Americans Concerned About Individual Liberty May Wish They Listened To AI Giant’s Warnings
Probably worth considering.
Who Heads To The Guillotine First In The Cultural Revolution?
Always a fan of that historical reference.
Trump Restores Presidential Fitness Test, Which Leads Into Epic Push-Up Contest Between Golf Icons
Sounds entertaining.
