You -- and you know who you are -- need not apply

I understand what you're saying, about this, and about possible subconscious biases, Cadet. But you're overlooking the end of my previous post.

They're judgment calls, with many factors, often of varying weights, involved.

That editors usually have to make them in less time and with less exposure to a prospective employee than would be ideal doesn't change what they should do. Or at least, do their best to do.

It's not a perfect system, and won't always work out ideally or fairly.

But can't you usually tell a lot by interviewing and listening to a person, even just once? And certainly, if you do it a couple, or several, times?

As for having to call former employers or others who may know an applicant, or having had to have seen someone in action, well, yes, you might have to do that in order to make the best judgment.

Ideally, the interviewing and hiring process should, in fact, be a lot like...reporting.

 

The "nth hire in a fairly diverse newsroom" covers an increasingly smaller number of newsrooms. Having a newsroom reflective of the community is wonderful goal. Is it attainable, perhaps not. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.

 

WriteThinking, I'm not overlooking the end of your previous post. Those "subjective judgment calls" are also known as "gut instinct," which I had previously addressed:

 

Hypothetical then: All of your columnists are white males. Your staff is 90-95 percent white males. Your readership, according to surveys and common sense, is less than half Anglo, perhaps half female.
You have an opening. Are you hiring another white male?

(And for the record, Cadet is spot on. When I hear "fire fighter," I instinctively think male. When I hear "ballerina" or even "dancer," I instinctively think female. It's a learned response, taught from childhood. And I hate that my brain still works like that.)

 

Does anybody know for sure that white guys have been excluded from candidacy? If so, can you indicate how you know this?

The most surprising thing about this topic is that a newspaper is actually hiring.

 

Not a clear-cut example of discrimination or anything, but here's a story I thought worth sharing. A few months ago I interviewed for an internship at a major metro paper during on-campus recruiting. I said I was interested in sports writing, and the conversation took a turn for the worse. The recruiter told me the paper rarely offers sports reporting internships. When they do, the recruiter said, "The sports editor comes to me and says 'Give me a candidate who can diversify our staff in terms of ethnicity or gender.'"

My jaw hit the floor. I knew this went on, but I honestly didn't expect a recruiter to tell me that so frankly up front. I ended up not applying for the position, and my opinion of the newspaper (which I used to hold in fairly high esteem) fell considerably.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think diversifying should be done, or at least, attempted, particularly at newspapers where it might be indicated, based on the current composition of its staff, or the paper's community or coverage areas and needs.

I just don't believe it should occur at the expense of someone who would likely be assessed as more qualified, talented or effective, based on the hiring editor's best judgment otherwise.

Hires should not be a result of any first instinct or initial reaction alone. And in most cases, I don't think they are. I know it could. and does, happen sometimes. It may have even happened to me at some point. I don't know. I just don't really think it occurs very often. Certainly, I hope it doesn't.

As I said earlier, I view the process as akin to reporting. If I did it by just jumping to my first conclusion and going with that, no matter what other factors come into play, then that would be shoddy reporting. I wouldn't do it, and I would hope that most hiring editors wouldn't either.

Applicants have to realize that it's a balancing act, with many factors -- both quantifiable and subjective -- involved. For better or worse, I think somebody's best judgment at the time is probably about the most anybody can hope for.

 

I'm sure it must have been crushing for you, but it was probably a much-needed reality check. Sportswriter candidates are worse than a dime a dozen. When I was in a position to take on interns (at a paper with a very small staff), I had ridiculously good candidates. The kid I took happened to be a white male but he was from an Ivy League school and came armed with clips from the Baltimore Sun,the Philly Daily News, and the New York Times.

 

I really hate this subject...really, really hate it. At the same time, I understand the situation from both sides. From my perspective (a black male) it sucks knowing that initially, with every beat I cover, people are thinking 'minority hire.' When I walk through the newsroom, I often wonder if people are thinking 'minority hire.'

The most frustrating part of it is that basically, you've got to bust ass for 6 months to a year to prove to everyone you're worthy. And when I say prove you're worthy, I mean basically you've got to kick everyone's ass on the beat you cover for your co-workers and peers on the beat to consider you an equal (at least that's how I feel most of the time). Then, when you kick everyone's ass, you've got to deal with, "the players just like you because you're black"...blah, blah, blah.

I have no problem putting my work up against a white male for comparison when it comes to pursuing a job. And having spent 5 years working for a podunk daily (doing agate pages, taking calls, etc.) before even getting a sniff at a metro (covering high schools, I might add), I definitlely don't think my blackness put me on the fast track to anything. Yes, I'm now covering an important beat at a metro. But to me, the great equalizer is and always will be hard work. Period.

 

I think you just figured out why newspapers are committed to diversity hires.

 

Yes, people do make their assumptions. Just like you are passing off your assumptions regarding the decision-making processes of many people doing the hiring in this business.

 

No, she's not. Her statement is well supported by statistics. Men make more than women.

Look it up.