Affirmative Action Reaction washingtonpost.com
Affirmative Action Reaction
By William Raspberry
Saturday, May 17, 2003; Page A25
One of the advantages of being around for a while is that no matter what happens, you've seen something like it before. I've seen something like Jayson Blair, the reporter for the New York Times who deeply embarrassed his employer by manufacturing or stealing information that he passed off as original work -- and who, by getting away with it so long, earned himself a place in journalism textbooks for decades to come.
I was around in the early 1980s, when Janet Cooke embarrassed The Post with her made-up account of an 8-year-old heroin addict. Then, as now, the after-the-fact questioning proceeded along two main tracks: (1) How could the reporter have deceived so many smart people for so long? (2) What impact will the deception have on the prospects of other young black journalists? One interesting point is the difference in the answers, then and now.
In the days after Cooke had to give up her 1981 Pulitzer Prize, I found myself reassuring young black journalists and journalism students that they needn't worry about the Cooke affair. Janet, I told them, was one of a kind. She was a con artist who lied to advance her career, I said. It wasn't about race. I'm not sure I'd give the same answer regarding Blair today -- not because his sins are so different from Cooke's but because the atmosphere in which those sins are being dissected is different. If my answer to the second question posed above would be different, it's because so many of my white colleagues are proposing a different answer to the first one.
It may not be a consensus yet, but a lot of journalists are suggesting that Blair got away with it because he is black. They are saying, unless I miss their point, that a newsroom commitment to diversity and affirmative action leads editors to hire poorly qualified cub reporters, to promote them further than their talents can justify and, finally, to disregard all signals that something is wrong.
And if this is what they believe, it could have an adverse effect on young black journalists -- not from the top, where diversity policies are promulgated, but at the level of middle management, where hiring decisions are made. I can picture mid-level editors so determined to protect themselves against another Jayson Blair that they will give the green light only to the near-perfect black applicant. And there aren't that many near-perfect applicants of any color. I'm reminded of an anti-affirmative action view of 30 years ago: that it was dangerous to hire unproven blacks (particularly for TV news) because once you hired them, their race rendered them "fire-proof."
I don't doubt that some flawed black applicants were passed over on this reasoning -- even while flawed white applicants were being hired. I don't doubt that some blacks were given an extra chance. But do I believe that no whites were given an extra chance? Of course I don't. Was Blair hired -- and were the negative signals about him ignored -- because he is black? I don't know. Maybe no one does. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the people who hired me at The Post in 1962 couldn't tell you what role my skin color played in their decision.
They would tell you they saw a bright young guy with decent writing skills, and they would tell you they were especially pleased that this bright young guy was black. Was I hired because I was black? Promoted because I was black? Who knows? What I do know is that scores of people -- black, white, Asian and Hispanic -- have come and gone over the years I have been at The Post, and that not all have gone willingly.
Oh, one more thing I've been around long enough to have seen before: the expert schmoozer, the colleague who uses some combination of charm, wit and ambition to worm his way into the affection of his seniors. I don't disparage the practice -- indeed I recommend it to those capable of bringing it off. Isn't it obvious that it helps your career if the boss likes you? Or if your boss's boss is seen laughing and chatting with you?
Blair, by all accounts, was a first-rate schmoozer, and I don't doubt that it helped keep him afloat. It wouldn't be necessary to say any of this if the miscreant were white. But Blair is black, and for too many of my colleagues that fact trumps everything else. If his credentials weren't checked, if he was promoted beyond his level of competence, if he ended up lying and stealing to support the image he worked to sell, and if his bosses believed the lies longer than they should have -- don't you see? It's because of affirmative action.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page