AZ Voters May Ban Racism And Sexism In Hiring
Howard Fischer writes for the AZ Star of an amendment to prohibit special treatment for women and minorities, "politely" referred to as "affirmative action." Yes, that's actually racism and sexism -- same as special treatment for white guys. Californian Ward Connerly is behind the measure:
Connerly, who pushed through a similar measure in his home state in 1996, said it "sets the tone that government should not be discriminating against its citizens or granting anyone preferential treatment."He also said this measure simply mirrors the intent of other civil-rights laws that already ban discrimination.
"We sometimes forget that these laws are not just there for women and minorities," he said.
"They're there to apply to everybody. Black people aren't the only ones to have civil rights," said Connerly, who is black.
Federal courts have outlawed numerical quotas that spell out that a certain percentage of school admissions, jobs or contracts must go to minorities or women.
But judges have upheld affirmative-action programs designed to help groups that have been underrepresented. And the courts also have allowed certain bid preferences if the government can show minorities or women are not getting a share of contracts.
Here's a blogger all angry that no vaginas were on this panel:
Media analysis: no women need apply?
When MediaBistro announced its upcoming panel discussion titled "Finding a Business Model for News and Online Media", it listed only white men as panelists, thus joining a list of other apparently well-meaning organizations whose leaders tend to see only men as media innovators. In MediaBistro's case, this is particularly ironic, since the pioneering Web-based all-things-media outlet and consulting company was founded by Laurel Touby, a woman.The Women, Action & the Media (WAM!) community took issue with MediaBistro's treatment, issuing this letter:
Dear MediaBistro and Demand Studios,We applaud your efforts to create an "an open discussion about the business models, innovation, and power of community that are changing journalism." But your selection of presenters on this subject has forced us to wonder to whom, exactly, this discussion is open.
We won't stand for another panel exclusively composed of white males when the future of our media is at stake. As members of Women, Action & the Media, we know all too well that white-male-dominated conversations produce white-male-dominated media models. We ask you to stand with us instead, to create a sustainable new journalism that includes and supports all of us, including women and people of color.
It's not hard to find qualified women to serve on your "Finding a Business Model for News and Online Media" panel. Here are just a few we've come up with today:
Tina Brown, The Daily Beast
Ada Calhoun, Babble
Gabrielle Darbyshire, Gawker Media
Nicki Gilmour, The Glass Hammer, founder and CEO of Evolved People Media LLC
Erica Gruen, Quantum Media
Kathleen Hall Jameson, director, Annenberg Public Policy Center
Carol Jenkins, president, Women's Media Center
Rita Henley Jensen, Women's eNews
Esther Kaplan, The Nation Institute
Dori Maynard, president, The Maynard Institute
Gina McCauley, Blogging While Brown
Laurel Touby, your founder at mediabistro.com
Sheryl Hilliard Tucker, executive editor, Time, Inc.
Joan Walsh, Salon
Tracy Van Slyke, The Media Consortium
Deanna Zandt, media technologistPlease let us know if you need help getting in touch with any of these exceptional women - we'd be very happy to help make those connections.
Signed,
Apparently, MediaBistro has been successfully bullied, Tweeting this:
We hear you & you're right. We'll add a panelist in the coming weeks. Stay tuned... http://bit.ly/272SxO.
The panelists MediaBistro currently has?
•Moderator: Jon Fine, media columnist, BusinessWeek.
•Jay Rosen, press critic, writer, and NYU journalism prof.
•Matt Romanoski of NJNewsroom, a "breaking news site" created by 40 journalists formerly of the Star-Ledger newspaper.
By the way, I'm on a journalism panel, too, in late August, with three other women. Gasp! Men, and specifically, white men, are unrepresented? Um, yeah. The person leading the panel tried to get a number of different men to be on the panel, and they were all going to be busy or out of town on the appointed day.
AZ link via ifeminists
Yes, please another LAW! Thank You! Please make it much harder to hire and fire the people YOU or a company wants.
John Paulson at June 25, 2009 12:17 AM
They're trying to ban affirmative action. I added those words above to make it clearer.
Amy Alkon at June 25, 2009 12:29 AM
SORRY! I am properly mollified! Please forgive! Still do we need a another law to change a law. Can we not just delete said old laws....
John Paulson at June 25, 2009 12:54 AM
The constitution was supposed to give us our basic laws of governing ourselves.
The 14th amendment that says "all citizens shall receive EQUAL PROTECTION under the law."
Capitals my emphasis.
Amy you point out a growing problem of politicians legislating special laws for different genders, different ethnic groups etc...
Our wonderful politicians, thinking that more and more laws are the answer, are sometimes forced to make a law against a law they have already passed or that is already on the books.
Remember a couple years ago we had the hot issue of illegal immigration?
Our brave politicians were fired up and they were going to make an illegal immigration law.
People in the public pointed out we already have that law, we just choose not to follow it.
Why go through the trouble to put a duplicate law on the books we have no intention of enforcing?
Good article.
David M. at June 25, 2009 4:25 AM
Right around the thirteenth paragraph, I saw the phrase, "create a sustainable new journalism."
What is that? Additive-free adverbs? Organic onomatopoeia?
old rpm daddy at June 25, 2009 4:44 AM
Diversity my ass.
There's one thing that all of those names have in common - they all belong to left-liberals.
brian at June 25, 2009 5:00 AM
They should add Judge Sotomayor. She could bring an unbiased opinion to the table. Ha! Ha!
David M. at June 25, 2009 5:46 AM
I'd rather ban affirmative action myself. Everyone, including employers, are entitled to their biases, just like those of us who object to biases can choose to recognize the biases of these employers and withhold our custom.
Patrick at June 25, 2009 7:16 AM
As for Sotomayor, I can forgive her racism/sexism as she's entitled to her biases, but I will never forgive a judge for the impeachable offense of redundancy.
"...a wise Latina woman..." she says. One wonders how many wise Latina MEN she knows.
Patrick at June 25, 2009 7:20 AM
One wonders how many wise Latina MEN she knows.
Point of order, a man can't be a Latina, he would have to be a Latino.
I know I am being pedantic, but I just had to.
-Julie
Julie at June 25, 2009 8:17 AM
Julie - I think that was his point.
"Mr. President, in the dictionary under 'redundant' it says 'see: redundant'."
"Well, you can say that again."
brian at June 25, 2009 8:22 AM
Julie writes:
Sigh...pendantic wasn't the word that came to mind...
That was the very point. If you see the post, I fault her for "the impeachable offense of redundancy," and I quote her statement regarding "a wise Latina woman."
And I speculate how many wise Latina MEN she knows. The point of that statement being is that the expression "Latina woman" is redundant.
Thank you, Brian. I'm glad someone got it.
Patrick at June 25, 2009 11:08 AM
I just finished the third of three straight early morning networking meetings populated entirely by attorneys, accountants, and bankers.
Each meeting thirty strong. No women. Why? Because we seek only "male-dominated conversations" that produce "male-dominated" finance models? Uh, no. Lending is lending. Money is money. The truth is there just aren't that many women willing to wake up at 5.30 am to generate business.
But Women, Action & the Media should by all means go ahead and waste time complaining about who sits on what panel. Here in the real world we welcome any woman willing to go through the same shit we do to hustle up a dollar.
snakeman99 at June 25, 2009 11:24 AM
They have added (or replaced one panelist) Alisa Bowen.
I am honestly not sure what the reaction to that should be. The panel is still 75% men, and still 100% white.
In what sense does Alisa Bowen represent diversity on this panel? When should "we" be satisfied?
"We won't stand for another panel exclusively composed of white males when the future of our media is at stake. As members of Women, Action & the Media, we know all too well that white-male-dominated conversations produce white-male-dominated media models. We ask you to stand with us instead, to create a sustainable new journalism that includes and supports all of us, including women and people of color."
Why are "we standing" up for one white woman on this panel? Don't we need at least two women? Don't we need at least one person of color chosen to represent all peoples of color? What are our standards, why are we letting down our sisters of color, and why again does the private company running this seminar owe anyone anything?
I hope you can help enlighten me.
crossposted at June 25, 2009 12:26 PM
But Women, Action & the Media should by all means go ahead and waste time complaining about who sits on what panel. Here in the real world we welcome any woman willing to go through the same shit we do to hustle up a dollar.
Posted by: snakeman99 at June 25, 2009 11:24 AM
-------------
snakeman99, You know that lazy men have more free time to work because women are busy taking care of the kids and the household.
They shouldn't be left out because they are being resposible. They should be able to come in at 8:30 take a 1 hour lunch at noon "to check on the kids" and leave at4:30 so they can "pick up the kids." (sarcasm intended)
David M. at June 25, 2009 1:57 PM
All I know is that if the panel has nobody with French Canadian ancestry, I'm writing a strongly worded letter to the editor! The oppression stops now!
Pseudonym at June 25, 2009 2:44 PM
Jon Fine's married to the head of Mediabistro, Laurel Trouby. So the price must have been right.
KateC at June 25, 2009 9:37 PM
Today the panel seems to be:
* 6 members
* 3 men
* 3 women
* 100% white
I sure hope feminist activists will not stand for this racist make up and will excoriate the three women who have agreed to this charade:
Alisa Bowen, Maegan Carberry, and Rachel Sklar.
What a disgusting, non-diverse, racist panel, and all at a time "when the future of our media is at stake."
I for one will be boycotting.
crossposted at June 26, 2009 9:52 AM
I would like to take this opportunity to once again point out the complete lack of ideological diversity in the media.
We are so fucked.
brian at June 26, 2009 10:29 AM
Brian- Yes! Sure... Please spend more time worrying about how the little people are being given bad information.
Crid [CommentCrid@gmail.com] at June 26, 2009 5:19 PM
Why go through the trouble to put a duplicate law on the books we have no intention of enforcing?
David,
The politicians have to justify their jobs somehow. If they weren't spending their time passing useless laws, well, the masses might actually expect them to find something useful to do.
E. Steven Berkimer at June 26, 2009 9:34 PM
Leave a comment