

Hiring criteria at First Look Media: "Not white. Not male." - pvnick
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/04/14/passover-greetings-editor/#comment-22673

======
oskarth
I don't know what happened to my comment, but I posted something along these
lines.

 _You are kidding right?

Where would firstlook be without Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden?
Affirmative action is great, but this is absolutely ridiculous._

To clarify, there's nothing wrong with having a strong policy to counter-act
"normal" discrimination. What is wrong is explicitly discriminating against a
group of people, regardless of who they are.

This reminds me of some radical feminist fractions who say most books are not
worth reading because they are written by dead, white, males [no citation].
It's absolutely true that white males are unfairly dominating the classics
section, but the way to combat this is not to blacklist them. That's a recipe
for disaster, and I'm quite certain Simone de Beauvoir would agree with me.

EDIT: Since this will be part of the discussion, it's important to understand
what affirmative action is. Here's the definition from Wikipedia: _policy of
providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged
group who suffer from discrimination_.

It's about positive discrimination of disadvantaged groups, not elimination of
advantaged groups.

EDIT 2: This topic has been flagged already, but I'm writing this for future
reference. What this seems to imply is that if a new Greenwald or Snowden
comes along, they are _explicitly not welcome_. This is not affirmative action
at all, it's just an unreflected usage of it, without understanding the true
meaning or function of affirmative action.

An organization with such an attitude will eventually die. I hope this was
just a poorly worded reply from an individual that doesn't reflect how
firstlook actually deals with these things.

~~~
hashbanged
This is what affirmative action is. They are not outright saying NO to white
males, they are specifically looking for people who are not white males
though, considering they already hired mostly white males. Read the comment he
replied to. They did not say that they will not hire white males, because that
would be ridiculous, considering that they are already mostly white males.

~~~
greenyoda
_" They are not outright saying NO to white males"_

Cook's statement was: "Not white. Not male." That seems to be pretty
unambiguously saying "no" to white males.

Affirmative action would be something along the lines of: "We encourage
applications from women and ethnic minorities."

~~~
hashbanged
Did you read the question? Because in context, it really DOESN'T look like
they're saying that. I can't believe people are accusing an organization that
is MOSTLY white males of discriminating against white males!

Q: Are there particulars attributes or beats you’re looking to fill

A: Not white. Not male.

~~~
devilshaircut
I agree 100% with your reasoning here.

And I want to add also into the mix another aspect I feel is relevant: we are
talking about _journalism_. In the field of journalism (and writing in
general), there is incentive to represent bold and challenging ideas. It is
clear that they have the white male perspective covered. From that viewpoint,
it seems fair that they would seek to cover their bases with journalists who
speak from other cultural backgrounds.

If that is part of his reasoning, I rather agree with the sentiment.

------
worklogin
It was pointed out already: A firm started by Glenn Greenwald and edited by
"John Cook" who I am assuming is as white as snow, putting discriminatory
standards as their lead qualifiers.

------
hashbanged
This does not mean what most people are going to interpret it to mean. Here
was the question:

"Are there particulars attributes or beats you’re looking to fill"

The way I interpret this is that given that they already hired a lot of white
males, they are looking to hire more people who are not white males.

But I'm sure plenty of people will use this mostly white male work place as an
example of "reverse racism," somehow...

~~~
lucisferre
Sure but here at HN hiring for diversity _is_ discrimination. Totally makes
sense.

------
ba5ecamp
First Look hires white male editor to hire anyone but white male reporters.
LOL

------
MichaelAza
I get what he meant ("we're looking to create a diverse team") but the way he
phrased it is just all kinds of wrong.

Keeping a terse style doesn't justify saying silly things which I assume
weren't meant literally.

~~~
worklogin
Best comment so far. If his intention was to say "Diverse staff; we are
looking for new and varied backgrounds and cultures to cover our stories", he
should have said something along those lines to avoid the expected (and
justified) "WTF" of saying they aren't accepting any more "privileged"
positions.

~~~
hashbanged
Or maybe we white males should just rest assured that we aren't being
discriminated against, especially not by an organization of mostly white
males, and think more carefully before we post things like this to HN. You
knew exactly how people would interpret it, but you chose to ignore the
context in which the question was asked.

------
bagels
Did they edit this? I don't see that in the link...

~~~
jffry
Nick Manes 14 Apr 2014 at 12:20 pm Are there particulars attributes or beats
you’re looking to fill for as you staff up with reporters?

John Cook 14 Apr 2014 at 12:34 pm Not white. Not male. Fast. Interested in
reporting as a live, iterative process that plays out on the internet as well
as one where you go away for six weeks and come back with 4,000 words. Eager
to make a name for themselves. Beat-wise, intelligence and national security
are obviously important to us at the initial stages, but I’m more interested
in good capable people who can apply their skills to all manner of stories
than subject-area experts.

~~~
bagels
I see, in the comments. Thanks.

------
xianshou
Can we just agree that evaluating anonymized work samples the way orchestras
evaluate blind auditions would make things simpler and easier?

[http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-
leadership/2013/oct/14/b...](http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-
leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias)

~~~
devilshaircut
I don't agree with that premise though. I agree you would end up with a
complement of capable employees but it doesn't address culturally-embedded,
systemic discrimination. That is what affirmative action is designed to
address. I presume to respect your intellect, so I am sure you are aware that
access to quality education is problematic for various ethnic and racial
groups in the United States (and beyond - but I am specifically addressing
affirmative action).

------
frandroid
One of the comments: "I mean we all get you, and I agree with a strong
approach to diversity, but that is just wrong."

How does anyone think they're going to achieve diversity without diversity
hiring?

------
ba5ecamp
John Cook has a bit of a cowboy/male bravado writing style which I don't think
really fits stylistically with First Look/the Intercept but he also did
interesting things at Gawker

------
hmgibson23
A hilarious backfiring of positive discrimination...

~~~
trhway
in a zero-sum game my positive discrimination is your negative discrimination

------
trhway
obligatory reference to affirmative actions in Undercover Brother.

[http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-
EJKebbn24hbmtn/undercover_b...](http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-
EJKebbn24hbmtn/undercover_brother_2002_conspiracy_theory/)

------
devilshaircut
The follow-up comments:

> Malcolm Pollack 14 Apr 2014 at 2:33 pm > “Not white”? “Not male”? > How
> about “No Irish need apply”? > Imagine if you announced that you were
> looking to fill job openings, but didn’t want any women or blacks. > That
> this can be done so openly, so blithely — and that it is considered not an
> act of unconscionable bigotry and race war, but rather as a badge of honor —
> is very ominous indeed.

> Ralph Thayer 14 Apr 2014 at 3:27 pm > “Not white. Not male.” > Noted.

> BubbaMustafa 14 Apr 2014 at 5:56 pm > So you hate whites and males? That’s a
> blatant discriminatory statement. You have shown your true colors. Way to
> go!

> LitThom 14 Apr 2014 at 6:04 pm > “Not white. Not male.” > That is just
> wrong. I mean we all get you, and I agree with a strong approach to
> diversity, but that is just wrong.

> Will Cate 14 Apr 2014 at 8:02 pm > re “Not white. Not male.” > Thanks for
> letting us know that this is not an operation to be taken seriously.

> JOC 14 Apr 2014 at 8:35 pm > It’s so hip to discourage employment of white
> males, especially if you are one (and already have a newsroom full of them.)
> #johncook’swhiteguilt

> JOC 14 Apr 2014 at 8:49 pm > It’s so hip to discourage employment of white
> males, especially if you are one (and have a newsroom full of
> them).#johncookswhiteguilt speaks in terse, serious language.

As a minority, I understand how these people feel; as a minority, it does
however also bother me that these people react in such a reflexive manner. It
is such a small percentage of times where people like that experience any sort
of discrimination. Frankly, if I reacted in this reflexive manner every time I
faced some mode of discrimination, the people I surround myself with would
find me to be an insufferable, whiney brat.

Strong language, perhaps, but I can think of no other way to characterize how
I would be perceived in analogous circumstances.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
But hopefully, you do find ways to point out that _this is not OK._ I mean,
it's not OK when it's done to a minority because of them being a minority.
When it's done to white males because an outfit wants more diversity... meh, I
can't get too excited about it, even though I'm white and male.

Don't become an insufferable whiny brat. But don't stop trying to find
effective ways to call out racism when you run into it, either.

~~~
devilshaircut
I really appreciate your sentiment. I will say this (and again I do agree with
you): bigotry of varying degrees is so common and so engrained in society that
if I were to bother to recognize its presence consistently, it would quickly
become unsustainable.

I do try and find ways to point out the "not okay" aspects of situations when
I can, but it is rare. Here, for example, I took a leap of faith in the HN
community for it to be okay for me to criticize the knee-jerk reactions of the
aforementioned respondees to the original post. For me, it's just such a
"weak" reaction for said people to complain in some rare, ambiguous case that
in no way relates to them personally, about discrimination against white
males. "Weak" is really the only word I can come up with right now.

------
carsongross
Now we see the violence inherent in the system... Elp! Elp! I'm being
repressed!

------
interstitial
I imagine this story to be off the HN front page any minute now.

~~~
hashbanged
Almost instantly.

------
burntroots
When did HN become a gossip rag? Quote taken out of context. Nothing to see
here, move along.

------
MrZongle2
Apparently to enlightened members of society like editor John Cook, it's ok to
discriminate against white guys.

