What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

USA Today Race And Inclusion Sports Editor Fired (1 Viewer)

What's your take on her firing?

  • Definitely deserved to be fired

    Votes: 21 45.7%

  • Probably deserved to be fired

    Votes: 14 30.4%

  • On the fence

    Votes: 6 13.0%

  • Probably did not deserve to be fired

    Votes: 3 6.5%

  • Definitely did not deserve to be fired

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Total voters
    46
Dumb tweet, but people shouldn't be fired over a single intemperate remark on social media.

I saw this tweet when it came out because it blew up.  It deserved criticism, no problem.  I also gather from the article that the author is probably at least a little bit insufferable.  Messing with a person's paycheck over something like this is taking things way too far though.  I actually feel legitimately sorry for journalists whose job essentially requires that they maintain a Twitter profile.  I know you have to do this too, Joe, but you can theoretically avoid hot-button topics if you want.  Journalists who write on these sorts of topics can't.  

 
I have a problem with there being a Race and Inclusion Editor in USA Today Sports in the first place. Allow me to segue into this next part. I follow Doug Farrar, who I love reading about football from, on Twitter. He writes for USA Today Sports and is a News Editor, I believe. But his politics are left as heck in his Twitter feed and he's unafraid to post blatantly political things. They're really to the left of the Overton Window, for sure. Wonder what's going on at the USA Today Sports section that this is going on and that they feel the need for a Race and Inclusion Editor. Gets my Spidey Senses tingling.

 
Also, I should add that speaking as a right-winger, it's as if this particular story was designed in a lab to make me support cancel culture.  First, there's the general silliness of having a Race and Inclusion editor for a sports section, as rock pointed out.  Second, the tweet in question was definitely a little on racist side and the author seems to realize that, yet paints herself as the victim of some kind of racial machination.  Third, I have no idea if this particular author is actively in favor of waging cancellation campaigns against other people who make "problematic" tweets, but she certainly across that way so this story even has the "hoist on your own petard" angle that's almost universally delicious.  

But the fact remains that people should be treated with a little grace and the state of our souls shouldn't be judged by an impulsive tweet sent in three seconds during a heated moment.

Anyway, I voted "probably did not deserve to be fired" because I always have the sneaking suspicion that these people are really getting fired for being insufferable jerks and this one particular episode of social media unrest is just a convenient pretense.  That is a thing that definitely happens in workplaces.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Dumb tweet, but people shouldn't be fired over a single intemperate remark on social media.
Click to expand...
I lean towards agreeing with this philosophy in general.

But...

I also think that if you're the "race and inclusion editor", and you make a sweeping, ignorant accusation against one race, then you probably aren't qualified for your job.

 
Sea Duck said:
I lean towards agreeing with this philosophy in general.

But...

I also think that if you're the "race and inclusion editor", and you make a sweeping, ignorant accusation against one race, then you probably aren't qualified for your job.
Click to expand...
Thats where I am...so voted probably deserved to be fired.  Just dumb when in such a position to make such public comments.  Its not  like it was some comment dug up from years ago.

 
What exactly is the purpose of a race and inclusion editor? 

I am usually against these firings, but like SD posted, maybe this is a case of it being appropriate? 

 
Her linked in says she is a Senior Social Media Editor and her USA Today page just calls her an editor. This seems like a way to gain her noteriety (fired in a role related to her reason for being fired) instead of something USA Today actually called her. So easy to trigger conservatives.

 
In this day and age, it it just unwise to post racially charged comments like that on social media unless you are one of the tiny percentage who basically have immunity to say anything and not face repercussions.  Looks like she was not in that tiny percentage. 

Edit: Also, her reaction is weird in the sense that in the beginning she thought USA Today would stand by her, but then later said that when there was fall out from prior things, they never did. Not sure why she thought it would be different this time.  I have no doubt that she faced unfair criticism and scrutiny, but tweeting that was just unwise.  She sounds like she wants to be able to say whatever she wants, while doing it under the guise of "I am just calling out white privilege."  There are ways to go about what her end game appears to be, and I don't think this it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Dumb tweet, but people shouldn't be fired over a single intemperate remark on social media.

I saw this tweet when it came out because it blew up.  It deserved criticism, no problem.  I also gather from the article that the author is probably at least a little bit insufferable.  Messing with a person's paycheck over something like this is taking things way too far though.  I actually feel legitimately sorry for journalists whose job essentially requires that they maintain a Twitter profile.  I know you have to do this too, Joe, but you can theoretically avoid hot-button topics if you want.  Journalists who write on these sorts of topics can't.  
Click to expand...
If her job wasn’t what it was, then I would agree with you. But when you do something that is blatantly in direct opposition to your job, firing seems like a legitimate response. Credibility is one of the worst things you can lose as a professional and her tweet pretty much cost her all of hers. I mean, if a cardiologist was found to be encouraging people to smoke, I would fully expect the hospital he worked at to fire him.

 
thriftyrocker said:
Her linked in says she is a Senior Social Media Editor and her USA Today page just calls her an editor. This seems like a way to gain her noteriety (fired in a role related to her reason for being fired) instead of something USA Today actually called her. So easy to trigger conservatives.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute here. Are you saying that her title is not what Joe said it was?

If her title is indeed race and inclusion editor Will you take back your statement?

In fact, she herself has said that it is her title: https://hemjhaveri.medium.com/i-am-no-longer-working-at-usa-today-heres-what-happened-7ebd540a510e

Who are the triggered ones again?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
thriftyrocker said:
Her linked in says she is a Senior Social Media Editor and her USA Today page just calls her an editor. This seems like a way to gain her noteriety (fired in a role related to her reason for being fired) instead of something USA Today actually called her. So easy to trigger conservatives.
Click to expand...
Say what?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Dumb tweet, but people shouldn't be fired over a single intemperate remark on social media.

I saw this tweet when it came out because it blew up.  It deserved criticism, no problem.  I also gather from the article that the author is probably at least a little bit insufferable.  Messing with a person's paycheck over something like this is taking things way too far though.  I actually feel legitimately sorry for journalists whose job essentially requires that they maintain a Twitter profile.  I know you have to do this too, Joe, but you can theoretically avoid hot-button topics if you want.  Journalists who write on these sorts of topics can't.  
Click to expand...
I didn't know having twitter was a job requirement.  If it was a work related twitter account she shouldn't be posting racist, inflammatory tweets on it.  Apparently she had a history of this as well since her termination letter, which she discussed in an article on her firing, mentions other incidents.  If her twitter account was personal she shouldn't have had her job title and place of employment listed on it.  She can't have it both ways. 

 
John123 said:
Apparently she had a history of this as well since her termination letter, which she discussed in an article on her firing, mentions other incidents.  
Click to expand...
Sounds like USA Today should fire themselves for a terrible hire to begin with (given the role/title)

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Dumb tweet, but people shouldn't be fired over a single intemperate remark on social media.

I saw this tweet when it came out because it blew up.  It deserved criticism, no problem.  I also gather from the article that the author is probably at least a little bit insufferable.  Messing with a person's paycheck over something like this is taking things way too far though.  I actually feel legitimately sorry for journalists whose job essentially requires that they maintain a Twitter profile.  I know you have to do this too, Joe, but you can theoretically avoid hot-button topics if you want.  Journalists who write on these sorts of topics can't.  
Click to expand...
I’m the opposite. It’s time for people to be held accountable for remarks made to the world. Someone rose to prominence recently who made everyone think every single dumb thought that passed through their dumb head should be for public consumption.  If you’re going to say dumb stuff acting in a public capacity, expect some backlash. 
 

edit to add: it’s very obvious why this is gaining traction in here, hopefully people will hold other more prominent individuals for their lies and race-baiting on Twitter, errr parlor or wherever they’re still allowed to opine. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Dumb tweet, but people shouldn't be fired over a single intemperate remark on social media.

I saw this tweet when it came out because it blew up.  It deserved criticism, no problem.  I also gather from the article that the author is probably at least a little bit insufferable.  Messing with a person's paycheck over something like this is taking things way too far though.  I actually feel legitimately sorry for journalists whose job essentially requires that they maintain a Twitter profile.  I know you have to do this too, Joe, but you can theoretically avoid hot-button topics if you want.  Journalists who write on these sorts of topics can't.  
Click to expand...
If there is one person who should be fired for such a tweet it should be the 'race and inclusion' person.  I mean that is her job to be inclusive and she lost all credibility to do that. 

 
Instead of offering a real apology, she just kept digging deeper blaming the 'alt-right' and 'white supremacy':

"Some part of me has been waiting for this to happen because I can’t do the work I do and write the columns I write without invoking the ire and anger of alt-right Twitter.  There is always the threat that tweets which challenge white supremacy will be weaponized by bad faith actors."

 
jon_mx said:
Instead of offering a real apology, she just kept digging deeper blaming the 'alt-right' and 'white supremacy':

"Some part of me has been waiting for this to happen because I can’t do the work I do and write the columns I write without invoking the ire and anger of alt-right Twitter.  There is always the threat that tweets which challenge white supremacy will be weaponized by bad faith actors."
Click to expand...
I truly believe that some people spend so much time on Twitter that they become unable to discern reality from Twittergarbage and slowly Twittergarbage becomes their reality.

 
I just read her article about Oral Roberts.  I really wish they would have won now.  If someone doesn't like their rules, don't go there.  It is a private school.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
What exactly is the purpose of a race and inclusion editor? 
Click to expand...
Crank out virtue signal articles like "There aren't enough black coaches in __________" and then fill in the blank each season with a different sport and mix n match with competitive levels. Womens high school volleyball, mens collegiate track, womens professional hockey, etc.  Then highlight a recent trailblazer that's inspiring both on and off the field/court/ice but conclude that the sport still has a long way to go.

 
jon_mx said:
Instead of offering a real apology, she just kept digging deeper blaming the 'alt-right' and 'white supremacy':

"Some part of me has been waiting for this to happen because I can’t do the work I do and write the columns I write without invoking the ire and anger of alt-right Twitter.  There is always the threat that tweets which challenge white supremacy will be weaponized by bad faith actors."
Click to expand...
You know it IS possible that 

1. She said a dumb thing 

2. She probably deserves to be fired for it 

3. Alt-right and white supremacist types on the internet have been vicious and rude to her all along and indeed are weaponizing this incident in bad faith. 
 

I actually think all 3 of these are likely true. 

 
People who have high profile jobs and demonstrate profound lack of judgment deserve to be fired.  This one is a no brainer.  Especially given her job.  

 
timschochet said:
3. Alt-right and white supremacist types on the internet have been vicious and rude to her all along and indeed are weaponizing this incident in bad faith. 
Click to expand...
:confused:  What do you mean by bad faith in this context? Do you actually think there are some in the "alt-right" who secretly agree with her but are pretending to disagree just to get her fired?

Please note I'm asking about this context, I'm not asking you to drag out your broad brush and smear conservatives in general.

 
FairWarning said:
I just read her article about Oral Roberts.  I really wish they would have won now.  If someone doesn't like their rules, don't go there.  It is a private school.
Click to expand...
Here’s the opinion piece: 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2021/03/oral-roberts-ncaa-anti-lgbtq-code-of-conduct

She’s 100% right in this case. Would you have rooted for Oral Roberts if they refused to admit blacks or Jews? 
Hateful bigotry against homosexuals is still regarded by some as a respectable difference of opinion, rather than unacceptable attitudes in today’s society. Oral Roberts, and any other university that discriminates against LGBTs, should not be allowed in the NCAA tournament no matter how deserving the team is. 

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
:confused:  What do you mean by bad faith in this context? Do you actually think there are some in the "alt-right" who secretly agree with her but are pretending to disagree just to get her fired?

Please note I'm asking about this context, I'm not asking you to drag out your broad brush and smear conservatives in general.
Click to expand...
Well first off when I smear alt-right folks, which they constantly deserve, I’m not smearing conservatives in general, since most conservatives have nothing to do with the alt-right, thankfully. So let’s get that out of the way. 
 

No I don’t think they agree with her but I think they pretend to be outraged in order to get her fired; most likely they’re secretly delighted by the opportunity to get her fired. That’s what I meant by bad faith. 

 
timschochet said:
No I don’t think they agree with her but I think they pretend to be outraged in order to get her fired; most likely they’re secretly delighted by the opportunity to get her fired. That’s what I meant by bad faith. 
Click to expand...
Fair enough - thank you. Do you think that's what got her fired, and not her inappropriate tweet?

 
timschochet said:
Here’s the opinion piece: 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2021/03/oral-roberts-ncaa-anti-lgbtq-code-of-conduct

She’s 100% right in this case. Would you have rooted for Oral Roberts if they refused to admit blacks or Jews? 
Hateful bigotry against homosexuals is still regarded by some as a respectable difference of opinion, rather than unacceptable attitudes in today’s society. Oral Roberts, and any other university that discriminates against LGBTs, should not be allowed in the NCAA tournament no matter how deserving the team is. 
Click to expand...
We'll have a difference of opinion on this and leave it at that.  

 
timschochet said:
I want to live in a society in which it’s not acceptable to have a difference of opinion about bigotry against homosexuals. 
Click to expand...
I don’t know the answer when it’s involving a religious private school.  Knowing this, why would one consider Oral Robert’s to be a good fit for them unless it’s a specialized program they offer?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Dumb tweet, but people shouldn't be fired over a single intemperate remark on social media.

I saw this tweet when it came out because it blew up.  It deserved criticism, no problem.  I also gather from the article that the author is probably at least a little bit insufferable.  Messing with a person's paycheck over something like this is taking things way too far though.  I actually feel legitimately sorry for journalists whose job essentially requires that they maintain a Twitter profile.  I know you have to do this too, Joe, but you can theoretically avoid hot-button topics if you want.  Journalists who write on these sorts of topics can't.  
Click to expand...
If journalists still followed what they were taught in school and just applied those rules to tweets they wont have any problems. 

 
timschochet said:
Well first off when I smear alt-right folks, which they constantly deserve, I’m not smearing conservatives in general, since most conservatives have nothing to do with the alt-right, thankfully. So let’s get that out of the way. 
 

No I don’t think they agree with her but I think they pretend to be outraged in order to get her fired; most likely they’re secretly delighted by the opportunity to get her fired. That’s what I meant by bad faith. 
Click to expand...
The problem is she is not smearing white supremist.  She is smearing people who properly attacked her ignorant statement by grouping them together with white supremists.   She is deflecting from her own racist hatred by falsely accusing others.  She is a piece of work.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
The problem is she is not smearing white supremist.  She is smearing people who properly attacked her ignorant statement by grouping them together with white supremists.   She is deflecting from her own racist hatred by falsely accusing others.  She is a piece of work.  
Click to expand...
Exactamundo.  The Devil made her do it!

And he's white!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was already leaning towards her being fired, but hearing she was the race and inclusion manager seals the deal for me. That tweet shows she isn’t qualified for the job, have no idea why anyone would keep her on for that role after a comment like that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Here’s the opinion piece: 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2021/03/oral-roberts-ncaa-anti-lgbtq-code-of-conduct

She’s 100% right in this case. Would you have rooted for Oral Roberts if they refused to admit blacks or Jews? 
Hateful bigotry against homosexuals is still regarded by some as a respectable difference of opinion, rather than unacceptable attitudes in today’s society. Oral Roberts, and any other university that discriminates against LGBTs, should not be allowed in the NCAA tournament no matter how deserving the team is. 
Click to expand...
So we are switching back from private companies can do what they choose (Big Tech banning Trump) to private companies shouldn't be allowed to have their own rules?   Neat.

 
I think the issue should really be (for the sake of argument) what if she had been right and the shooter had been white? Would what she tweeted have been acceptable under those circumstances? 

I think the answer is no, she made an over the top generalization about race. Should that have cost her her job? Well, probably - I don't know what the job requirements are for being the Race And Inclusion Sports Editor (didn't know such a position existed anywhere) but her comments seem more race exclusive than inclusive. 

 
squistion said:
I think the issue should really be (for the sake of argument) what if she had been right and the shooter had been white? Would what she tweeted have been acceptable under those circumstances? 

I think the answer is no, she made an over the top generalization about race. Should that have cost her her job? Well, probably - I don't know what the job requirements are for being the Race And Inclusion Sports Editor (didn't know such a position existed anywhere) but her comments seem more race exclusive than inclusive. 
Click to expand...
An interesting take - I would think it would get lost in the shuffle as larger media would have taken the ball and run with it  - CNN, WaPo, NYT types. Heck, when Kamala Harris’ niece tweeted that it was most likely a white male, it had 6500retweets and over 30,000 likes before taking it down.  
 

Now the stats do show that white males are more likely to be the shooter in the last 20 years or so, but we don’t hear about the inner city mass shootings as much - at least in Chicago we don’t.  Black on black crime just doesn’t move the needle like when whites are involved, and the media knows that.

 
Just reading about a mass shooting of 7 in Philly.  Maybe Hemal could shed some light on the shooter, since it didn’t make the national news.

 
squistion said:
I think the issue should really be (for the sake of argument) what if she had been right and the shooter had been white? Would what she tweeted have been acceptable under those circumstances? 

I think the answer is no, she made an over the top generalization about race. Should that have cost her her job? Well, probably - I don't know what the job requirements are for being the Race And Inclusion Sports Editor (didn't know such a position existed anywhere) but her comments seem more race exclusive than inclusive. 
Click to expand...
Depends.

First, she's factually inaccurate (not about the shooter who wasn't white, but that its always an angry white man) or at least super hyperbolizing.  So in this case, completely unacceptable.

Her role compounds and exacerbates the error.  So for this situation ends there.

But to your point lets say it always is angry white men and let's take her out of it.  I think that should be discussed...but rationally without race based hate and "sides".  This is how we should talk about issues in general.  Black crime rates vs white or other ethnicities is of course the prime example here.  Can't not talk about it...but sure as hell can't talk about it unconstructively.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
You know it IS possible that 

1. She said a dumb thing 

2. She probably deserves to be fired for it 

3. Alt-right and white supremacist types on the internet have been vicious and rude to her all along and indeed are weaponizing this incident in bad faith. 
 

I actually think all 3 of these are likely true. 
Click to expand...
1. She said an extremely racist thing,  which displayed a very ugly side of her that compromises trust in any objectivity she may have, which in her position is critical. 

2. She absolutely deserved to be fired for it. 

3. As a result,  she opened herself and the idea of the position she holds up to criticism from people who would like to weaponize her words and use them to discredit the ideas behind why her position was created. 

You can't hold people to a different standard simply because of the position they hold, what they are supposed to represent or who they are. If they show clear bias or abuse the influence they have because of the position they hold then they should no longer hold that position, plain and simple. Double standards do nothing to help anybody.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems like she acted the opposite of how she was supposed to in her position, although I’m not familiar with the job duties for what her title entails. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
So we are switching back from private companies can do what they choose (Big Tech banning Trump) to private companies shouldn't be allowed to have their own rules?   Neat.
Click to expand...
Good point. Issues aside, I think most people are frustrated with the hypocrisy. From both sides. We're seeing that with the border stuff. People now are up in arms over things they seemed to be less concerned about last year. And people now are dismissing stuff at the border that were concerned last year. It's incredibly discouraging but it's how it is. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Revisiting Rae Carruth's Conviction - A Resource Management Perspective On The Death Penalty (10/12/22 20:52 PST)
Replies
2
Views
1K
FairWarning
FairWarning
randall146
USA Shootings
453 454 455
Replies
23K
Views
460K
Snorkelson
Snorkelson
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
3K
GregR
GregR

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top