Article

2004-04-25 Home Front: Culture Wars

AN open letter to my colleagues in the news business

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut bskolaut@hotmail.com 2004-04-25 11:49:09 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Except that Blair was hired and promoted based on his color -- a fact admitted to by those who hired and promoted him. If Blair's race had never had a role in his advancement, it wouldn't have cropped up during his disgrace.

Sorry, but Pitts is just trying to throw a smokescreen up to cloud the questions around "affirmative action".

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-04-25 1:19:20 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-04-25 1:19:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 This is funny and on the mark re: the racial aspect of it....however, I have to say that, IMHO it misses one important reality.

Until minorities themselves dismiss the need for racial preferences to give them a leg up over their "white" (what doest that mean exactly anymore?) counterparts, I think it is fair to ask the question of whether or not race based preferences result in the acceptance of lower standards for minority candidates.

You can argue (successfully, I believe) that certain minority groups face prejudice in hiring practices or that a poor black student must overcome more to reach the same heights as a child who hails from an already successful household. But once you start the discussion, it's not fair to say that's it's not ok to ask the question if race-only based preferences result in the acceptance of less qualified workers, rather than just providing the "in" that the equally qualified candidates need to get in the door.

One reason that "when a white person screws up, it ignites a debate on the screw up. When a black person screws up, it ignites a debate on race" is because there is no possibility that the white candidate was afforded any type of preference based on his race.

Again - I think this article was funny and on the mark - but fails to address the underlying question that minorities should be asking as well as "whites"...and that is ...do race based preferences provide preferences to less qualified candidates v/s simply equal the playing field?

Posted by B 2004-04-25 1:36:58 PM|| 2004-04-25 1:36:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Well said RC. Even Blairs book title had to bring up the slave guilt trip. I don't follow that path anymore. And Pitts makes his living commenting endlessly about race. It's central to his themes.

So what is Pitts problem, white people? Whats his fix, a dialogue about race? A condemnation of the majority for being a majority.

Posted by Lucky 2004-04-25 1:50:21 PM|| 2004-04-25 1:50:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 And Oh yeah Leonard, maybe you could write a piece about what it does mean about the future of white journalism. Your most important question. Not how to win the war.

Posted by Lucky 2004-04-25 1:54:45 PM|| 2004-04-25 1:54:45 PM|| Front Page Top

11:44 raptor
07:59 Igs
07:12 B
07:09 B
02:35 Lucky
02:21 SON OF TOLUI
00:23 Anonymous4555
23:55 Laurence of the Rats
23:44 Pappy
23:44 OldSpook
23:42 OldSpook
23:35 eLarson
23:34 ex-lib
23:31 eLarson
23:30 Pappy
23:28 eLarson
23:27 Pappy
23:26 mmurray821
23:26 eLarson
23:25 Steven Den Beste
23:24 eLarson
23:21 Super Hose
23:21 eLarson
23:20 Zhang Fei