On the other hand, whenever a Black person is successful, it's okay to mention that in the headline.
But I agree it's a bit off. For example it's OK for the NYT to mention that SBF is a genius and that he's an effective altruist in headlines as long as his ponzi is not exposed, but as soon as it's exposed, suddenly no mention of "effective altruism" (despite several people from that movement personally and illegally benefiting from "donations" from SBF [1]) nor any mention of "genius" anymore.
We're kind of used to headlines working that way.
[1] even years and maybe even decades later there's hope some of these funds shall be clawed back from these people though (people who suddenly now have a very low profile)
That's an odd description, given that the anger is because "effective altruism" is seen as neither effective at helping others nor honest about altruistic motives.
That's a really weird way to describe systemic racism.