Racism at the New York Times

Source: Power Line

One popular theory about the left’s obsession with racism is that they are the largest practitioners of it themselves.

To wit, this report from National Public Radio:

People of color at ‘New York Times’ get lower ratings in job reviews, union says

An analysis of comprehensive data for roughly 1,000 The New York Times employees conducted by members of the union that represents its newsroom found that Black and Latino staffers are far less likely than their white peers to receive strong job ratings.

There are financial consequences to job ratings because they influence the size of employee bonuses, the NewsGuild union says. But staffers tell NPR the differential is even more important because it indicates an underlying systemic problem that the paper is failing to address. It is demoralizing, they say, and contributes to the premature departure of some colleagues. . .

“Being Hispanic reduced the odds of receiving a high score by about 60%, and being Black cut the chances of high scores by nearly 50%,” says the report from the NewsGuild chapter representing employees of The New York Times. The study, shared before its release with NPR News, reflects data stretching back to 2018, when a new rating system was put in place.

Keep in mind that current leftist orthodoxy (or at least Ibram Kendi’s wildly popular version of it) holds that all disparities between races on any metric whatsoever is the result of racism and oppressive power structures. Ergo, the Times is full of racist managers (most of whom have probably confessed their “privilege” already anyhow). It will be worth keeping your eye on the Times as you can expect that employee evaluations are going to recalibrated such that “race norming” will become the new practice, that is, evaluation scores will be adjusted on a relative basis such that minorities at the Times score exactly in line with everyone else, and receive exactly the same salary bumps. At which point someone might get fired for asking, “What’s the point in doing evaluations?”

Meanwhile, in the FYI department, Nicole Hannah-Jones, the impresario of the 1619 Project, hasn’t published a bylined article in the Times for more than two years though she is still on staff as far as I know.