For all the oppressed white males out there....

you know what getting turned down for jobs did for me? It made me work harder. Made me read more and write more. And i'd like to think it's paying off.
That's how you get hired. You get better. Not by resting on the fact that you're white, black, male or female.
And quite honestly, what minority wants to be viewed as a minority hire? Sure as hell not me.
I look at that report and it just makes me want to try harder to reach one of those key positions.

 

Who here despises Richard Lapchick?
Raise your hand.

 

Sure this topic has been discussed to no end here, and it deserves to continue to be that way until there's some resemblence to a solution in the foreseeable future. The fact that some of you read the report and then get angry at minorities is a joke. If you're white and you look at the state of the industry and you still get passed over by a minority, you must really suck at your job. That's like playing 1-on-1 basketball, being given a 5-point lead to a game of 12, your opponent not being allowed to use his hands while playing defense, having each basket you make worth two points and you still losing.

In that situation, it's more worth your time to work to make yourself better, not work to bring down the minority. (And I'm a white male who's been passed over by women and minorities in many internships I've applied for)

And this notion that being minority automatically makes you less qualified is becoming just plain silly. I'm all for hiring the best candidate, and I'm tired of the notion here that "hiring the best candidate" can't happen if your hiring a minority.

 

Dream, it's not so silly when the person doing the hiring tells candidates they shouldn't bother to apply because they have to hire a minority or a woman... or if they admit later to a candidate that "You're my first choice, but I have to hire so-and-so because the higher-ups won't let me hire a white guy" or words to that effect.

It happens. Not sure why any editor would ever admit that to a candidate, but it happens.

 

You're right outofplace. It's absolutely ridiculous if that's true. And I'm sure it happens. But how rare is that compared to the more qualified minority that's passed over because the SE felt more a rapport with his own kind, a white male?

 

pe - who said that?

 

I've read these threads with interest for several reasons, both personally and professionally. I can honestly say this is the first post that really pissed me off.

PEteacher, if you think the scenario you painted can be explained only in the manner you chose you're out of touch with reality.

I wanted to use much harsher language but didn't want to get into a personal attack.

 

The problem has been discussed so much it makes me angry. Many of those posting here know that the numbers are awful, yet won't do anything to change them. That to me is the saddest part of all.

 

My rather angry post, armageddon, was a direct response to this comment. "Bad news for us honky dudes?" Don't "us honky dudes" already have enough of an advantage? Christ!

 

Thank you

 

Whether those you describe as honkey dudes have said built-in advantages is relative. In some cases it just ain't so.

I've seen colleagues passed over and it wasn't because they sucked at their jobs or needed to work on their outside game to protect that five-point cushion.

A guy I met through the biz failed to land a high-profile job at his paper. This is an individual who generally has been praised on this board for his writing and overall body of work. He was shot down not because of a lack of skill but rather because he didn't fit the profile desired.

Making a blanket statement -- generally risky at best -- that rips an entire class of folks is just wrong. Even on a message board.

 

pe

Are you the same person who was shocked to discover that there are lots of jobs out there for 20k a yr? How many yrs have you been in this business?

Just curious, as it seems as though you have a lotof strong opinions about the industry.