Someone's Take on diversity in the newsroom...

How many minorities are coming out of journalism schools?

If there aren't that many coming out of J-schools, then there will be a correspondingly lower number of quality minority candidates among them, just as there would be for whites. (Not all graduates of any color are hire-worthy).

But because the pressure to hire minorities is often greater than the quality pool available, quality is sacrificed many times, as the column points out.

Diversity is great for the business because it helps us reach more readers. But I think the problem of quality available candidates rests with the fact that there aren't very many candidates of color overall coming out of J-schools.

 

This is a perfect example of part of the problem. There is still a pervasive idea that when a minority/female is hired, that it's a result of "diversifying" the department, and not that they may simply be the best person for the job. I am for diversity and certainly for hiring the best candidate, but it seems a lot of people here simply believe that the two can't go hand-in-hand. I doubt there's any more problem with the work ethic of minority hires than non-minority hires, but to make it seem as if there is further allows some people to continue to believe they were passed over for a minority because of a diversity move and not because they weren't as good at the job.

 

If it turns out that way, bravo. Great. All for it.

If you're trying to tell me that's the norm, then you're telling me that a minority is ALWAYS the best candidate. And common sense would indicate that is not always true.

And you're also dismissing the reality of supervisors being told "we need a minority hire on this one." Still waiting to hear, "We need a WASP hire on this one."

 

"Apart" as in "detached and separate" or "a part" as in "included" because my overall opinion is valuable enough to get the best person for the job, regardless of race, creed or color as part of the 14th amendment?

 

Shot,

Just so we're clear, I'm not one of those people who think that diversity doesn't include, for lack of a better term, a white perspective. I'm a proponent of all types of diversity -- regional, political, economic, etc. I've come across far too many editors who believe news happens in their household.

The people who know me in this business will tell you that I've done whatever I could to help good people. Not black people, white people or Asian people. But, good people. Now do I feel an added responsibility to assist and mentor people of color and women? Of course. They are underrepresented groups. I know that many minorities and women don't consider newspapers an option simply because they weren't aware the option existed. So if I can somehow contribute to opening their minds, I do.

If what you're wondering is if I've gone to the mat for some white folks, well, the answer would be hell yes. I've got no problem with that. I've done it several times, and yes, at the expense of a minority candidate who I did not feel was as good. I'm the last person who wants to see an underqualified minority given a free pass because, as I have said ad nauseum, it reflects poorly on the whole process. But I also think it's fair to point out the number of white guys in sports department that have been there 30 or 40 years, not quite able to keep up anymore, but given a free pass for length of service. But in our business, that type of "affirmative action" is acceptable. As you said, Shot, the sword swings both ways.

And your statement about still waiting to hear somebody say, "we need a WASP hire on this one" is ... interesting. Sounds a little bit like when people question why is there no white version of the NAACP. You don't need to tell a sports editor where to look for a WASP. Clearly, they all already know. Just look at the makeup of your average sports department.

I realize there are no easy answers here, but the truth is that sports departments do resort to the quota blame game instead of acknowledging their own mistakes.

Oh, and slappy, thanks for the correction.

 

For 200 years, most newspaper jobs were "nobody BUT white males need apply."

Now that the hammer's in the other hand, well, that's just tough shit.

 

Look at the Boston Globe. While the Herald goes out and hires Rob Bradford and John Tomase, two excellent writers, the Globe hires Amalie Benjamin. Ugh.

Bradford is extremely well-sourced, has re-defined baseball blogging and constantly comes up with interesting story ideas through his many contacts throughout the game. This despite never having worked at a major paper until being hired by the Herald about a month ago.

Tomase is an outstanding baseball writer who has taken over the Patriots beat at the Herald out of necessity and simply killed. Also never had major paper experience until coming to the Herald.

Amalie Benjamin is a female. That's about it.

And yet, the Globe is still the Globe, and thanks to the outstanding work by predecessors Peter Gammons, etc. (hell, even Chris Snow), and the current excellent work by Gordon Edes, it will still largely be the paper of record on the Red Sox because ... well, it's the Globe. Too bad.

 

I don't know if naming names is the best way to go here, keef, especially if the people aren't here to defend themselves. Which I give Ms. Hill credit for; she is at least here to answer.

 

I've mentioned this on SportsJournalists.com several times before, but here goes again. I've been told on four separate occasions by the person doing the hiring not to bother applying for a job unless I was a minority -- before I had even sent in a resume. So the only reason I wasn't qualified for these jobs was the color of my skin (because they hadn't seen my qualifications). Please point me to any minority journalist in the past 30 years who has been told flat out by the people doing the hiring not to bother applying for a job because he or she is a minority.

 

I think we all welcome the day when hiring of anybody is possible again.
Having said that, I applaud Jemele for having brought up a reasonable line of questioning.

 

Great thread. I've been reading the reasoned responses for a solid half hour now.

 

That sounds OK in the overall outlook of life.

But if you're one of the people who needs a representative job right now, it's not good enough to hear that it's a tough time to be White or Anglo or Saxon or Protestant.