APSE president's message

Now, there you go making assumptions again, YF. It's what you do best. You and I have never met, so you have no idea what my ethnic background is. But soldier on with your tired old left-vs.-right games that have helped get so many threads locked around here.

Others have dealt with the reasons why diversity is a bit further down the agenda for us right now. I'll just say that as a hiring editor, I've been in a position to do something about diversity on a front-line level. And I have, with my last two hires. But as an industry, we have to focus on our survival right now. If there are no jobs, then there won't be any way to work on the whole diversity thing.

But it's just like you to drag politics into a non-political discussion. Guess we can expect more of that.

Get lost.

 

Let's not forget about the issue of teams restricting access more every year.

 

To think diversity is our industry's primary concern, or that it should even be on the radar of existing concerns, is beyond insulting.

 

Well, I don't disagree that we have some more pressing concerns.

But showing absolute disdain over the issue of diversity isn't the way to go about it, either. Maybe diversity isn't pressing to some of us WASPy vets. But it's plenty important in some corners of our profession.

And YF, I didn't say that because I was a) liberal; b) conservative; c) Republican or d) Democrat. It was a politics-free statement.

 

In this whole argument, what exactly do people mean by "diversity"? Should newsrooms or sports departments reflect the communities they cover, the country in general, something else? Aside from pointing out how there are too many white men in newsrooms, the term seems amorphous and ill defined.

Also, how does an industry with non-competitive salaries and entry-level jobs in often unattractive locales go about shifting demographics? (Perhaps the sheer number of applications swats this point down, though the number of apps only says so much about the quality).

 

I'm thinking if that question is asked of someone with a stake in watching for diversity, they'd be able to define it for you pretty well. I can't, though.

 

This is 2011. Diversity is something that SHOULD HAVE BEEN rectified at least 20 years ago. Yet, it's still a hot button topic in a screwed up dying profession. The whole scene is sickening.

 

YF, you're reading with a broad brush; this is not an either/or proposition. There is a stark difference between "a" priority and "the" priority. A priority means it's on the list. The priority means it's at the top of the list or it's the only item on the list. What's being said here is that it shouldn't be "the" priority when other, bigger, issues confront the industry. What's not being said is that it shouldn't be on the list.

 

As usual, Breaker of Leopold and Loeb goes yard here.

Priorities, people. Priorities. Why is diversity -- which IS overdone as a topic by Poynter -- more important than survival of the medium and its increasingly ineffective, circular-firing-squad method of management? A method, by the way, that adversely impacts how that medium functions.

And YF, the Zagoshe-esque liberal-baiting is best served on another thread.

 

Who cares about diversity, just hire the best frickin candidate

 

That ship has sailed, and you aren't going to get what you want. Diversity is going to remain a priority.

 

My point is that if diversity is not a top priority, if falls by the wayside.

If it's not a top priority, there's no accountability.

There are no consequences if it's not a top priority. A manager has hired a bunch of white males in a row, and is asked about it? Well, it wasn't a top priority.

This is why the NFL and MLB require minority interviews. Obviously their top priority is finding the best coach/manager and winning games, but they're not allowed to overlook diversity when making that decision.

There is accountability and if they don't at least interview a minority they are subject to fines.

Then let's look at a place like the New haven Fire Department. They thought their top priority should be finding the best possible firefighters. The court told them other wise.

(And, it's worth noting somewhere that for some jobs, it can be hard to recruit minority candidates. Highly qualified candidates might not me interested in running into burning buildings or in drawing boxes for a newspaper in a small city they've never been to, for low pay.)

And, you'll have to forgive me if I'm the only one who sees irony in this situation. Racial/diversity issues are inherently political.

The issue has been used as a hammer by the left to beat up business. Well meaning folks have been accused of racism.

Jesse Jackson got his sons a Budweiser distributorship because Bub wasn't "diverse" enough in Jesse's eye's.

Conveniently, that was all taken care of when his family got the distributor.

And, the media has also beat the drum for diversity.

So, yes, when I see a bunch of white, liberal, newspaper folks all of a sudden downplaying the importance of diversity, I'm going to throw a flag. I'm going to call a foul.

At what point is a business/industry allowed to down play diversity? Should any company losing money be off the hook? Does the whole industry have to be in decline? How do we define the situation? Who decides?