Yesterday 08:17 PM
THE HILL
https://youtu.be/HPsBg9O4x3Q
VIDEO EXCERPT: If the races of the involved parties were reversed, I think it would probably strike many people as a slam dunk. Now, the employee, a white male and an editor at the Times, had applied for a more senior position as a deputy real estate editor. He did not get the job despite having extensive relevant experience, including with real estate news. That's according to the lawsuit.
Now, this is not just positive on its own, of course. However, the lawsuit also claims he did not even make it to the final round of interviews. He lost out to the following people.
Quote, "A white female, a Black male, an Asian female, and a multi-racial female." The candidate who did receive the position was the multi-racial female. She did not meet the stated qualifications for the position since she did not actually have experience in real estate journalism. Nevertheless, the hiring manager sent an email to herself signaling an intent to choose that person before even interviewing her.
That's according to the lawsuit. Now, these facts become more concerning in light of the time-stated desire to increase the number of minority and female employees in leadership positions. The lawsuit cites various diversity, equity, and inclusion, that's DEI, plans, as well as the Times 2021 proposal, a call to action, which lamented that "people of color, and particularly women of color, remain notably underrepresented in its leadership."
The proposal explicitly endorsed the idea of gradually replacing existing leadership with women of color to the specific exclusion of white and unspecified ethnicities. Leaders at the Times would be judged "by how well they create pathways for a diverse group of deputies to succeed them according to the proposal".
So basically the Times published a manifesto announcing that hiring managers would face pressure to promote underrepresented minorities. The paper took the position that senior leadership would be evaluated on the basis of their success at hiring Black, Latino, and female applicants.
So then when it came time to hire a deputy real estate editor, the Times did not really consider the white male applicant despite the fact he possessed "considerable experience with real estate news, multiple news platforms, and innovative content". The hiring manager only considered diverse candidates and selected the maximally diverse candidate despite questionable qualifications. Again, that's the contention of the EEOC and the Times denies it...
The New York Times exposed for anti-white, anti-male discrimination? ... https://youtu.be/HPsBg9O4x3Q
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/HPsBg9O4x3Q
https://youtu.be/HPsBg9O4x3Q
VIDEO EXCERPT: If the races of the involved parties were reversed, I think it would probably strike many people as a slam dunk. Now, the employee, a white male and an editor at the Times, had applied for a more senior position as a deputy real estate editor. He did not get the job despite having extensive relevant experience, including with real estate news. That's according to the lawsuit.
Now, this is not just positive on its own, of course. However, the lawsuit also claims he did not even make it to the final round of interviews. He lost out to the following people.
Quote, "A white female, a Black male, an Asian female, and a multi-racial female." The candidate who did receive the position was the multi-racial female. She did not meet the stated qualifications for the position since she did not actually have experience in real estate journalism. Nevertheless, the hiring manager sent an email to herself signaling an intent to choose that person before even interviewing her.
That's according to the lawsuit. Now, these facts become more concerning in light of the time-stated desire to increase the number of minority and female employees in leadership positions. The lawsuit cites various diversity, equity, and inclusion, that's DEI, plans, as well as the Times 2021 proposal, a call to action, which lamented that "people of color, and particularly women of color, remain notably underrepresented in its leadership."
The proposal explicitly endorsed the idea of gradually replacing existing leadership with women of color to the specific exclusion of white and unspecified ethnicities. Leaders at the Times would be judged "by how well they create pathways for a diverse group of deputies to succeed them according to the proposal".
So basically the Times published a manifesto announcing that hiring managers would face pressure to promote underrepresented minorities. The paper took the position that senior leadership would be evaluated on the basis of their success at hiring Black, Latino, and female applicants.
So then when it came time to hire a deputy real estate editor, the Times did not really consider the white male applicant despite the fact he possessed "considerable experience with real estate news, multiple news platforms, and innovative content". The hiring manager only considered diverse candidates and selected the maximally diverse candidate despite questionable qualifications. Again, that's the contention of the EEOC and the Times denies it...
The New York Times exposed for anti-white, anti-male discrimination? ... https://youtu.be/HPsBg9O4x3Q