It appears that ITA is greatly in need of a white male Caucasian training program. There just doesn't seem to be enough of them to fill the page of listed authors. Too bad you can't find enough qualified white males.

I interned at a newspaper that had a special program for minority journalists. Created for some interesting discussion among the other interns.

I may be a white male now, but I was born a poor black child. Does that count?

I will pass on the opportunity presented by Ed's comment to make a Michael Jackson joke.

I'm no fan of the programs; they end up placing unfair labels on people who may be well-qualified, but chose a program because it was the best opportunity available and besides one can come up the hardscrabble way (freelancing for community papers, some internships, etc.) without doing so. But one must also consider that newspapers in particular -- and media in general -- don't really do a good job of prospecting for a broad array of talent. More often than not, the hiring in this business -- as is in a lot of other fields -- is a friends-and-family kind of affair with people often tapping their alumni networks (usually consisting of Medill, Columbia and the like) or old pals. This leaves out many otherwise talented blacks who either aren't in those networks because of the colleges they go to (historically black colleges and universities; smaller schools that don't have well-connected J-school operations and the like.) So the minority recruiting programs are formed to fill those voids.

As someone who believes in private affirmative action (a.k.a. hire who you want) versus the government-mandated variety, I don't have a problem with their existence despite my own personal distaste for it. Nor should you; after all, it's a private company making its own hiring decisions and CBS is within its right to do so. But the biggest problem for those who support such jobs operations is that it makes those news organizations lazy in their hiring. They can trumpet that they're doing diverse hires without actually doing the real things required to bring any sort of diversity to the newsroom: Expanding the hiring networks beyond friends, family and alum as well as looking at ideological diversity.

As someone who believes in private affirmative action (a.k.a. hire who you want) versus the government-mandated variety, I don't have a problem with their existence despite my own personal distaste for it. Nor should you; after all, it's a private company making its own hiring decisions and CBS is within its right to do so.

There is, of course, a big difference between supporting one's right to do something, and actually supporting what they do. I can support your right to speak and disagree and oppose what it is your saying. Such is the case with this CBS policy. It is elementary and obvious that I'm criticizing their actions.

But this does raise an interesting point. If it is illegal for whites to discriminate so blatantly on the basis of race, should the opposite also hold true? In a sense, then, we should support CBS' "right" to do this only if that right is applied equally.

Let's see if I can get this right.

1. ITA presents itself as the Net's "best new source".

2. ITA opposes affirmative action, believing that minorities or those traditionally shut out will get a fair shake in the selection process, nevermind as commented above that a huge part of job hiring is done through country club, fraternity, sorority and alum networking.

3. ITA has no women or minorities as writers, that I am aware of, except Ed.

4. I must then assume that ITA either doesn't want any women or minority writers or finds that none qualify for those positions. If none qualify, they don't want to help train any, either.

No, I don't get it why people should be irked. For years, the Daily Oklahoman had a policy of not putting pictures of Blacks on its front pages. Now that might easily have given Blacks the idea over many generations that journalism isn't for them. However, there's no need for programs that might now try to convince them otherwise?

I have an attorney friend who states openly that his firm won't bring on black attorneys because the firm's business clients want white attorneys. But everyone gets an "equal opportunity" under these great libertarian notions.

Numerous studies have shown that people with ethnic sounding names but similar qualifications are turned down for jobs, loans, and housing at a rate significiantly higher than whites. But everyone has an "equal opportunity."

In seven years of undergraduate school and law school, I never had a single black professor. But I'm sure they had the same opportunities to be there as whites. So there must not have been one single black person qualified to teach a single one of my courses.

OK, I am irked. I'm irked that people don't agree with me. ;-)

"But this does raise an interesting point. If it is illegal for whites to discriminate so blatantly on the basis of race, should the opposite also hold true? In a sense, then, we should support CBS' "right" to do this only if that right is applied equally."

On an objective standard, it isn't right. But let's also be honest with ourselves: It's done, even if not always done blatantly. As I mentioned before, many media organizations pick their employes from the cadre of alumni, friends, family and other associates. Since most of the media firms are staffed by Whites, it means that most of the potential hiring pool (with exception of the one Black friend) are going to be White. So race-based hiring may not be happening in any blatant matter, but it is happening, even with all the fig leaf about being an "equal opportunity employer."

So let's face facts, Joshua, the blatant race-hiring being done by CBS is no worse than the covert hiring friends and family plan. It's about the same: Not all that good at all for the various reasons I've explained earlier. But it exists. Besides I have a hard time telling anyone to not go for theirs if the opportunity is given.

And Joel, I would have to say that at least your friend is up front about his biases. Some people aren't even that overt and won't admit such vestiges of tribalism such as race trump competence and merit in their view. I would also remind you that libertarianism doesn't exactly say that hiring will be fair; only that people who are locked out of certain opportunities by others for whatever reason will have the equality of opportunity to go around the system and still make it. And there are; for Blacks, it's merely a question of the approach. All the race-based programs end up doing is 1) stigmatizing competent Black people who have achieved based on merit (along with the usual connections and the like) and 2) makes media firms lazy because they won't have to do the real work of looking outside their usual sources for media personalities and the like.

I would rather see Blacks make entres into these areas by building connections that will help do that. How? One way is to go to the "right" universities and associating with the "right" groups of people as it has always been done by other marginalized minorities. Or build a media structure of their own. Some of that already exists with Black radio stations and newspapers, but it must go beyond just catering to "the community." Like hip-hop artists whose albums are mostly purchased by White teens, those Black media organizations must also reach out to those outside Black circles.

As I mentioned before, many media organizations pick their employes from the cadre of alumni, friends, family and other associates.

I would submit that this is one reason why the MSM still does such a shoddy job in many cases. The workforce at my company is, if anything, significantly *more* diverse than the surrounding community, as we attract top scientific talent from around the country and around the world.

In my opinion, affirmative action programs (either private and voluntary or government-mandated) only serve to slow the advance of equality in society by sending the message that miniorities can't compete on their own merits.

ITA opposes affirmative action. . .

Joel, you of all people should know that anything I say is far from being a statement of what "ITA" believes. We are a collection of writers with varying opinions and takes. Please do not perpetuate a myth by suggesting there is some sort of editorial policy. I oppose affirmative action, in most cases but not all, yet I cannot speak for others.

I'd like to see a blog try to come up with a roster of nine contributors that, to use a Clinton-era expression, looks like America.

Josh,

OK, I shouldn't have stated it that way. But I believe you have also made a blanket negative statement about the United Methodist Church being more interested in ordaining gay pastors than saving souls. You perpetuated your own myth that was deeply wounding for someone who has spent years trying to reach people for Christ and knows scores of other pastors who have done the same.

Anyway, my greater point is that humans tend to be more likely to associate with people of similar backgrounds and race and that affirmative action is often the only way to make for a level playing field.

I apologize for putting forth your views as ITA policy. That was a gut reaction instead of a brain reaction.

In what instances do you favor affirmative action?

Josh,

And if you have time, go to Connexions and try to answer my question that I posed to economists about inflation.

"You of all people." I did take that as something of a compliment that you expect me to try to be fair minded, but that I had failed this time.

I would submit that this is one reason why the MSM still does such a shoddy job in many cases. The workforce at my company is, if anything, significantly *more* diverse than the surrounding community, as we attract top scientific talent from around the country and around the world."

That's a bit of an oversimplification isn't it, Mr. Seymour. After all, plenty of industries work well and still aren't all that diverse. Jewelry-making for one; another is Hollywood -- a media sector -- in which there's plenty of friends and family hiring yet it does well. The reason in both? Because the ability to make money by catering to the public's taste is far more important. Money almost always trumps other things.

Besides I think your view that MSM is shoddy isn't exactly meritous. You may not always like what you read or think it presents your point of view, but that doesn't make it shoddy. There are certainly issues with MSM that are ripe for criticism -- and I can explain them on and on because I actually know of what I speak. On the other hand, there are plenty of fine organizations that do a stellar job of covering the news or explaining culture, be it the Wall Street Journal or Wired. At the same time, if you don't like what you're reading, say the New York Times, you can choose another outlet, be it the Wall Street Journal or the Times of London.

Speaking of which, a key problem I do have with criticism from bloggers on MSM -- and since I've been on both ends, I can say this with some authority -- is that the criticism is often empty, usually on the same issues i.e. the paper's too liberal or won't publish conservatives or what have you. And that's because most bloggers have never worked inside an established media organization. Which means the problems that might be ripe for criticism go unnoticed; after all, how do you know if you're not on the inside. It also means that one is stuck making the same criticisms ad nauseum without much in the way of perspective.

This isn't to say there isn't any worthy criticism needed of MSM. What it means that until a few bloggers actually end up on the other side for a while, it's incomplete and not always containing much in the way of perspective or understanding of how media organizations work in real time.

RiShawn,

My comment about shoddy work in the MSM wasn't regarding bias, which is what bloggers often complain about. I just think it's obvious if you read enough newspapers and watch enough TV (especially local TV) that you'll notice there are some folks who got hired for some reason other than their talent.

As for the well-respected media organizations you mention, I doubt they follow the "friends and family" model of hiring you put forth as a stereotype of the industry.

Well, stereotypes are based on truth; they're often slight exaggerations of truth. The best news organizations do meritorious hires, but they also do connections-based hires as well. And often, the merit hires and connections-based hires are one in the same. Why? Those high-quality organizations have high-quality people who have networks of high-quality talent A David Cay Johnston is going to know at least 10 or 15 top-notch stars that the New York Times is interested in luring. The same holds true for other organizations. When your network is full of high-quality, talented people, you can lure high quality talent if that's you're aim. the best have connections to the best, so they lure the best. And as I mentioned with Hollywood -- another arena where connections-based hiring is common -- quality -- which for a Wall Street Journal, helps generate more money -- becomes even more important than connections.

This doesn't mean talent isn't important: Do great work and those in your industry or sector will notice. And talent is important in the long run. But breaking into a segment often does mean having some connections, which proves to be a problem for Blacks and other minorities, who may not attend those colleges where such connections can be made -- and really, for many people, college is only good for that; it's a key reason why anyone wants attend Harvard -- or aren't aware there are alternative organizations where such connections -- and access -- can be formed (the Intercollegiate Studies Institute for conservatives, for one).

This isn't simply a race issue. It's also class. Poor whites don't tend to go to Harvard or schools where entrees into media organizations can be made; nor are they usually aware of alternative organizations where such connections can be made. For both minorities and poor whites, awareness of such groups often come from pluck (i.e. scouring everywhere for any way to get in, as I did) or by happenstance.

It's the Horatio Alger way, but it sure won't increase diversity in the media ranks. Which is why the advocacy of private -- or even public -- affirmative action programs, while not exactly beneficial to minorities, is understandable if you look past one's own middle class upbringing.

Eric,

Did you switch employers? I thought you worked for Merck, which for years has had one of the most aggressive affirmative action plans in the country. Maybe you are thinking about quotas, which I don't support.

Several years ago, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra was reported as conducting its auditions for musicians behind a curtain, so that the only basis for selection of musicians (not vocalists - symphony musicians) was the quality of their performance. The judges were not provided with any information about the race of any of the individuals auditioning.

Not surprisingly, the affirmative action police were outraged. God forbid anyone should base a decision on whom to hire by performance and skills. Seemed like a pretty good idea to me - then and now.

Joel, the only hiring plan I'm aware of among the research and development groups is to hire the most talented people we can.

Eric,

Merck has long been aligned with the NAACP.

Merck's diversity policy can be found at . That policy includes its support for affirmative action.

I assume you know that and simply believe that the company isn't applying its affirmative action plan to the department in which you work. That may be, for I don't have any inside knowledge, just what Merck reports or has been widely written about Merck.

Sorry. That should be here

Merck has long been aligned with the NAACP.

So has just about every other Fortune 50 company. That doesn't have any relevance to hiring policies.

The section of the diversity policy you are referring to states:

"Our policy globally is to actively promote equal opportunity and, in the U.S., we pledge to a continuing program of affirmative action. Management has the responsibility to enforce the policy by making thoughtful and equitable efforts to correct imbalances in any areas of our workforce."

Sounds to me like they're just committing to hiring without bias, not to giving special consideration to minority applicants. If I'm wrong and CBS-like programs are in place at Merck, then I'm disappointed but it doesn't change my opinion that such programs are in large part counterproductive.

Eric,

Ever hear of the Merck Science Initiative Fellows program? It is (or was, if discontined) sponsored jointly by Merck and the United Negro College Fund. It is/was open only to African-Americans. In 1997, it placed 37 African-Americans for internship-like positions. Sounds like a training program designed by Merck specifically for one class of people.

It is possible that we are arguing over semantics, but I'm not sure I see the difference in what CBS does and what Merck may be doing.

Anyway, your original answer, to my ears, made it sound like Merck doesn't go out of its way to recruit minority applicants when it seems to me that it clearly does.

Finally, and then I think I'll write no more on this particular post, what irks me the most is that the humor invoked about caucasian traning programs seems to me to be a way not to have acknowledge that minorities because of past and current practices (networking, etc.) face huge obstacles in catching up to whites.

Humor has its place, but in this sensitive area, I think it would be best just to outright critcize the program while making it clear that the writer looks forward to the day when more minorities fill the fields for jobs requiring college educations. As posted it just comes off as indifferent to the long road toward true opportunity.

I think Josh would actually like to see that day and has a heart open toward peoples of all color, but I don't think he advances the cause with this particular post. It just reminds me of people selling cookies on college campuses at different prices, trivializing what is a very serious concern for reconciliation among the races.