Hiring criteria at First Look Media: "Not white. Not male."
firstlook.org
firstlook.org
You are kidding right?
Where would firstlook be without Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden? Affirmative action is great, but this is absolutely ridiculous.
To clarify, there's nothing wrong with having a strong policy to counter-act "normal" discrimination. What is wrong is explicitly discriminating against a group of people, regardless of who they are.
This reminds me of some radical feminist fractions who say most books are not worth reading because they are written by dead, white, males [no citation]. It's absolutely true that white males are unfairly dominating the classics section, but the way to combat this is not to blacklist them. That's a recipe for disaster, and I'm quite certain Simone de Beauvoir would agree with me.
EDIT: Since this will be part of the discussion, it's important to understand what affirmative action is. Here's the definition from Wikipedia: policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination.
It's about positive discrimination of disadvantaged groups, not elimination of advantaged groups.
EDIT 2: This topic has been flagged already, but I'm writing this for future reference. What this seems to imply is that if a new Greenwald or Snowden comes along, they are explicitly not welcome. This is not affirmative action at all, it's just an unreflected usage of it, without understanding the true meaning or function of affirmative action.
An organization with such an attitude will eventually die. I hope this was just a poorly worded reply from an individual that doesn't reflect how firstlook actually deals with these things.
Cook's statement was: "Not white. Not male." That seems to be pretty unambiguously saying "no" to white males.
Affirmative action would be something along the lines of: "We encourage applications from women and ethnic minorities."
Q: Are there particulars attributes or beats you’re looking to fill
A: Not white. Not male.
And I want to add also into the mix another aspect I feel is relevant: we are talking about journalism. In the field of journalism (and writing in general), there is incentive to represent bold and challenging ideas. It is clear that they have the white male perspective covered. From that viewpoint, it seems fair that they would seek to cover their bases with journalists who speak from other cultural backgrounds.
If that is part of his reasoning, I rather agree with the sentiment.
The reasoning is that it counters a pre-existing bias towards non-minorities and/or women.
Go back and read the question. You're perpetuating a narrative that takes his words out of context. The question was asked if there was anything they were specifically looking for. He said yes, people who are not white males. They are already mostly white males and they want to write something that is less from the perspective of mostly white males.
That is affirmative action. You have the definition correct.
Also, what are you trying to do by name dropping Simone de Beauvoir? It doesn't earn you any credibility. It does sound though like you think of yourself as a feminist or at least a supporter of equality if you won't use that label, since you're also creating strawmen feminists (who the hell says most books are not worth reading because they're written by men? Please tell me about which feminist scholar or author wrote about that). Read things more critically before you promote a narrative established by taking things out of context to pretend that First Look is discriminating against white straight men by being a bunch of white straight men and not trying to become MORE white straight men while not explicitly ruling that out at all.
"Are there particulars attributes or beats you’re looking to fill"
The way I interpret this is that given that they already hired a lot of white males, they are looking to hire more people who are not white males.
But I'm sure plenty of people will use this mostly white male work place as an example of "reverse racism," somehow...
Keeping a terse style doesn't justify saying silly things which I assume weren't meant literally.
John Cook 14 Apr 2014 at 12:34 pm Not white. Not male. Fast. Interested in reporting as a live, iterative process that plays out on the internet as well as one where you go away for six weeks and come back with 4,000 words. Eager to make a name for themselves. Beat-wise, intelligence and national security are obviously important to us at the initial stages, but I’m more interested in good capable people who can apply their skills to all manner of stories than subject-area experts.
Someone asks:
"Are there particulars attributes or beats you’re looking to fill for as you staff up with reporters?"
and he replies:
"Not white. Not male. Fast. Interested in reporting as a live, iterative process that plays out on the internet as well as one where you go away for six weeks and come back with 4,000 words. Eager to make a name for themselves. Beat-wise, intelligence and national security are obviously important to us at the initial stages, but I’m more interested in good capable people who can apply their skills to all manner of stories than subject-area experts."
HN should be filled with outrage at the "discrimination" of job postings demanding 10 years of experience with Go or Rust.
http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/b...
How does anyone think they're going to achieve diversity without diversity hiring?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-EJKebbn24hbmtn/undercover_b...
> Malcolm Pollack 14 Apr 2014 at 2:33 pm > “Not white”? “Not male”? > How about “No Irish need apply”? > Imagine if you announced that you were looking to fill job openings, but didn’t want any women or blacks. > That this can be done so openly, so blithely — and that it is considered not an act of unconscionable bigotry and race war, but rather as a badge of honor — is very ominous indeed.
> Ralph Thayer 14 Apr 2014 at 3:27 pm > “Not white. Not male.” > Noted.
> BubbaMustafa 14 Apr 2014 at 5:56 pm > So you hate whites and males? That’s a blatant discriminatory statement. You have shown your true colors. Way to go!
> LitThom 14 Apr 2014 at 6:04 pm > “Not white. Not male.” > That is just wrong. I mean we all get you, and I agree with a strong approach to diversity, but that is just wrong.
> Will Cate 14 Apr 2014 at 8:02 pm > re “Not white. Not male.” > Thanks for letting us know that this is not an operation to be taken seriously.
> JOC 14 Apr 2014 at 8:35 pm > It’s so hip to discourage employment of white males, especially if you are one (and already have a newsroom full of them.) #johncook’swhiteguilt
> JOC 14 Apr 2014 at 8:49 pm > It’s so hip to discourage employment of white males, especially if you are one (and have a newsroom full of them).#johncookswhiteguilt speaks in terse, serious language.
As a minority, I understand how these people feel; as a minority, it does however also bother me that these people react in such a reflexive manner. It is such a small percentage of times where people like that experience any sort of discrimination. Frankly, if I reacted in this reflexive manner every time I faced some mode of discrimination, the people I surround myself with would find me to be an insufferable, whiney brat.
Strong language, perhaps, but I can think of no other way to characterize how I would be perceived in analogous circumstances.
Don't become an insufferable whiny brat. But don't stop trying to find effective ways to call out racism when you run into it, either.
I do try and find ways to point out the "not okay" aspects of situations when I can, but it is rare. Here, for example, I took a leap of faith in the HN community for it to be okay for me to criticize the knee-jerk reactions of the aforementioned respondees to the original post. For me, it's just such a "weak" reaction for said people to complain in some rare, ambiguous case that in no way relates to them personally, about discrimination against white males. "Weak" is really the only word I can come up with right now.