News-Record.com

And don't forget Sheon Ladson, an editor at the N&O, and Kelvin Hart, an editor at the Charlotte O, last I heard.

Allen,
Can you cite any instance of any person other than yourself claiming that any of these people were hired due to the newspaper compromising its standards?

I think the implication is clear in almost every post-feud in which you participate, Jerry, that you very much feel that the News and Record compromises its standards and cuts the throats of more qualified candidates in order to hire black reporters.

That's what I get from them anyway - even if you're not using those exact words. That's what they call "reading comprehension" in all those fancy standardized tests...

Thanks for this list, Allen...I'm going to send it to a few cranky relatives you share the sentiment...

Okay, Joe, let's test your skills as a reporter. Provide a post I've made that clearly holds those implications. Let's see whether your "reading comprehension" rises to journalistic levels. I can assure you that it doesn't. Don't worry, though, I'm sure that your constant public groveling for a job at the N&R will pay off, providing evidence that standards have been lowered, they just aren't restricted to skin color.

I have nothing but respect for you as a writer and reporter, Jerry - I just disagree with you on Affirmative Action and, in particular, your view of the N&R's hiring policies.

There are a number of examples - but I guess I was thinking primarily of this exchange:

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/archives/2005/08/more_than_1000.html#comments

in which you said:

"It's remarkable that you worry about such stuff as this causing racial offense while you hire based solely on skin color and hang 'no whites allowed' signs over your high school journalism workshops. That's actual racism and that's truly offensive."

But finding that sort of thing isn't proof I'm a good reporter. My journalistic credentials were in good order years before I came to the N&R, where I already have a job...so I'm not sure my happening to agree with one of their policies and saying so qualifies as "groveling for a job" or what that grovelling would accomplish at this point.

There are N&R policies with which I disagree. This isn't one of them. We clearly disagree on that point.

JR, you're right. The list could go on.

So, Joe, how does what you posted translate to "you very much feel that the News and Record compromises its standards and cuts the throats of more qualified candidates in order to hire black reporters" as you claimed I do?

You put words into my mouth that I never spoke, implications into my writing that I never implied, and thoughts into my head that I never thought.

Were you born a mindreader, or is that something you picked up in journalism school?

And lest there be any misunderstanding, I do oppose the N&R's racial policies and will continue to do so, particularly John Robinson's mandate that one third of all hires must be determined by skin color, a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act, as I've pointed out with solid evidence in the past. A newspaper that considers itself to be above the law is a threat to the community it's supposed to serve.

Allen,

You're supposed to say all those folks took a demotion because working for anyone other than the N&R is a demotion, right?

Oh yeah.

February 2005, Jerry Bledsoe to Allen Johnson:

"In regard to John Robinson's clear mandate that one of every three newsroom hires must be a minority, you say that the N&R endorses equal opportunity and rejects preferential treatment. All of the new hires, you claim, will be qualified people whatever their race or gender.

That's a given, you add.

That's the kind of Orwellian double-speak that spews from you and John in ever greater quantities. What you claim is simply impossible when skin color has to be the primary consideration for one third of the people who are hired."

Read on for what Jerry terms his "apt" metaphor for hiring minorities: hiring people of low intelligence. He then chastises everyone for failing to see the "humor" in it.

Here.

Thanks participado for providing that link to the past. It was a great debate and though I can see truth in both what Allen and Jerry had to say, in this case I feel Jerry made some excellent points. I loved the metaphor. Great reading!

Jerry asked for "any instance of any person..claiming that any of these people were hired due to the newspaper compromising its standards."

Participado's link seems to show Jerry himself saying exactly that: "All of the new hires, you claim, will be qualified people...What you claim is simply impossible when skin color has to be the primary consideration for one third of the people who are hired."

Jerry, any comment? You said it is "simply impossible" for the N&R's policy to bring in only "qualified people." Is that not an instance of someone (you) claiming that paper has compromised its standards?

Principato,
If I were you I'd be ashamed to identify myself too.

As anybody can plainly see I did not use hiring people of low intelligence as a metaphor for hiring minorities. Neither did I call it apt since I didn't employ such a metaphor. That's a gross falsehood. What I claimed was apt was my parody of John Robinson's tortured reasoning.

Ed, what you do is little different from what Principato does. You take snippets out of context.
You leave out the absurd part, Allen's claim that the N&R endorses equal opportunity and rejects preferential treatment while requiring that one third of hires be conditioned on skin color. That's obviously the Orwellian double-speak to which I was referring. Nothing else there meets those standards. It's impossible to reject preferential treatment while rejecting people because of their skin color. It's also impossible to know whether you're hiring the best qualified person when the qualifications of some applicants aren't even being considered because of their skin color.

Too easy, O Backpedaling One.

Jerry, Sunday:
"Can you cite any instance of any person other than yourself claiming that any of these people were hired due to the newspaper compromising its standards?"

Jerry, Wednesday:
"It's also impossible to know whether you're hiring the best qualified person when the qualifications of some applicants aren't even being considered because of their skin color."

participado.

you're doing a great job at being a literalist.

would you mind sharing your views on this subject?

personally, I think any system that says that the next hire MUST be a person of color because the previous two weren't is seriously flawed.

Now, beyond that, I'm curious as to how the N&R weeds out white folks? Do you have a checkbox on your applications that says "Are you white?"

Or do you wait until they show up for their interview and tell them "I'm sorry, but you're too light for the job".

There's a difference between quoting out of context and eliding parts of a given text for clarity. I believe my quotes do the latter.

Jerry, you seem to be saying quite clearly that the claim that all hires are qualified is impossible. I apologize if I've misread your work, but don't think I have.

Here's the entire passage you wrote:

"All of the new hires, you claim, will be qualified people whatever their race or gender.

That's a given, you add.

That's the kind of Orwellian double-speak that spews from you and John in ever greater quantities. What you claim is simply impossible when skin color has to be the primary consideration for one third of the people who are hired."

The lines I omitted have no bearing on the two I quoted -- the first quote contains the claim that all hires are qualified, the second has you saying that claim is impossible.

Am I missing something here?

Truth, pulling direct quotes makes me a literalist? I thought it made me a delivery system. There was a call for research; I answered.

Sharing my views on the subject would be a silly exercise in self-indulgence. That's a common mistake in the N&R blogs: commenters think that by venting their spleen, they are contributing to a "discussion". Not so, my friend. Pay attention to the arc of the thread, and add to it. Your opinions about hiring policy, and mine, don't meet that standard.

If they're ever relevant, due to some experiential wisdom they yield or some point of logic that is being overlooked, I will share my views. Until then, I await Mr. Bledsoe's response.