When can we expect white reporters and editors to resign from the NYT?
/
White NYT staffers demand they be replaced
The NYT workers guild has demanded that their employer impose racial quotas, with 1/2 of all editors and reporters being black or “people of color” (an undefined term, but presumably that excludes tanned white males).
On July 31, 2020 the NY Times Guild issued a set of demands to the Times, including an explicit hiring and staffing quota based on race, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion: New York Times Employee Recommendation Memo:
We represent employees from every facet of The New York Times, from editorial to business, from specific departments to ERGs. We come to this meeting with a mandate for sustained change and urgency to engage in a very necessary and long-overdue discussion about how to improve the working experience of Black, Indigenous and people of color at the Times, BIPOC@NYT.
In addition to recommendations to form new committees, increase “diversity” initiatives, and so on, comes an explicit call for quotas, referencing census data for New York City:
Our workforce should reflect our home: The Times should set a goal to have its workforce demographics reflect the makeup of New York City—24% Black and over 50% people of color—by 2025. [Orthodox Jews need not apply, though]
We recommend:
A. Setting a goal of hiring, retention and promotion for the New York Times workforce to reflect NYC demographics by 2025.
Legal Insurrection explains:
On campus, this is called “equity,” a euphemism for racial, gender and other discrimination. It’s the opposite of equal opportunity, it’s demanding equal results even if it means discriminating against some people on the basis of race, ethnicity or other immutable factors. It’s the core driving the “antiracism” movement on campus. When campus activists and administrators say “equity” (as opposed to “equality”), what they really mean is discrimination based on race to achieve a desired racial outcome.
This “equity” discrimination is at the heart of the book How to Be Antiracist, which is being used as a teaching tool at universities throughout the country:
“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
If, as these people claim, the need for imposed discrimination and change in the workforce is so “urgent” that it must be imposed by 2025, why not implement it now? The Times staff is almost entirely far-left (I’m assuming there may be one or two classical liberals left, hiding under their desks), and the whites among them have benefitted from their racial privilege for four hundred years, since 1619. Why not renounce that unfair advantage now and resign, freeing their positions to worthy black transgenders? Why delay racial equity five more years?
For that matter, why aren’t Greenwich’s liberal high school students, especially the pampered seniors at our private schools eschewing applying to top-tier schools, and those already enrolled in them yielding their space to the more deserving?
Just askin’.
(UPDATE: Not to pick on a young person, but there’s a letter to the editor of Greenwich Free Press today from a young Bryn Mawr student (annual tuition approx. $72,000) and a graduate of one of the country’s two most elite private schools (2014-2015 tuition $52,000), complaining about the theft of a pro-Biden sign she’d placed “(outside my parents’ house gate”).
It’s a reasonable guess that the girl opposes gates and walls on our borders, and title to the house her parents bought new in 2005 for $5.125 million was shifted to an LLC recently, presumably to avoid the very taxes her candidate has vowed to raise. Perhaps her next editorial will be sent from a Guatemala migrant camp.)
