"Blair was reassigned and promoted, often over the doubts and objections of editors, in part to honor the shibboleth of diversity - Blair, who is black, won his first job as an intern in a diversity program."
Journalists who defend affirmative action have groused that such comments are unfair, contending folks can't make Blair the poster boy for the perceived pitfalls of diversity.
But that's not what's being done. People are questioning, quite appropriately, whether Blair's faults were overlooked simply because he's black. If they were, that's just as wrong as not hiring him because he's black.
The one question not being asked is why the Times simply didn't go after a more experienced black reporter from the start. There are far more seasoned African-American journalists here at the Sun, and at other papers, who can write as well as Blair, have more years in the business and don't have a flair for fiction. The Times would have done well to seek out, and hire, one or more of them.
Of course, hiring a more experienced black reporter would have meant the Times would have had to shell out more money. In addition to the entire affirmative action/diversity debate surrounding the short but controversial career of Jayson Blair, we now have to ponder whether the Times hired him not only because he was black, but also because they could lowball him on his salary.
Liberal whites who support affirmative action and diversity had best heed the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s admonition that doing justice to black folks to compensate for past wrongs will not come on the cheap. Let that be the lesson of the day for our friends at the Times.***
Right. His "sin" is being a fraud.
Now, The New York Time's sin IS an issue of race.
Jayson is the poster boy for affirmative action; the NYT is the poster boy for liberal white guilt being hoisted on its own petards.
Howell Raines should be pistol whipped and run out of town.