I got as far as the misspelled word "scandelous" and stopped reading. Mike Bowers, Editor East Brunswick, NJ

A bit disingenuous of you not to include Janet Cooke with your other examples of journalists who committed fraud, don't you think? I wonder why you might have left her out? Perhaps because she was ..... black?!?!? Seriously, Goodwin wasn't even a journalist - she was a book author who plagiarized NOT made up stories like Blair, Glass, and Cooke. You are just as guilty of whitewashing the affair as those who attempt to make it merely a black issue. Can't we all just get along? Chris Alum Chris, IT Manager Medford, NJ

You missed the point, Mr. Sherman. While I think you've come up with a fair and reasoned discussion of what transpired at The Times, you've drawn the wrong conclusion. You posit: "It is no more fair to allow the actions of Mr. Blair to reflect on black reporters everywhere than it would have been if the liberal black community had taken the Glass or Barnicle incidents as evidence that all white men in journalism are malicious fakers." What's important to consider is not the effect that Mr. Blair's race has on us now, but the effect it had on The Times during Blair's tenure. No reasoned person will now conclude that Mr. Blair's foibles make it more likely that other Black journalists lack integrity. It is, however, reasonable to conclude that double standards that are permissive of poor behavior are likely to foster poor behavior. I think it is laudable that a private company would make an effort to diversify its ranks. The fact that The Times wanted to see Black reporters succeed is a credit to the paper. But there is a difference between creating opportunities and making excuses. There are plenty of brilliant, motivated, young, Black reporters who can (and do) thrive in major news organizations. But to knowingly allow someone (like Mr. Blair) to cheat and lie simply because he is Black defeats the goal of fostering meritorious achievement. The bottom line is this: A voluntary "affirmative action" policy that is designed to provide opportunities for underrepresented minorities is praiseworthy. But a policy that encourages (overtly or tacitly) substandand performance is shameful. Indeed, I would argue that if such a policy keeps someone like Mr. Blair in his position -- a position that might otherwise be occupied by an ethical and hard-working journalist -- then it is counterproductive. Erik Naft, Attorney Pittsburgh, PA enaft@yahoo.com

The "point," NYC, is that The Times has acknowledged that Mr. Blair was permitted to engage in duplicitous conduct because of his race. The Times editorial staff knowingly allowed Mr. Blair to write lies. Had this admission not been made, I would agree with you that reading race into the issue is foolish. But this week's high-level Times resignations had a reason: this admitted permissiveness was folly. And it was race-based. I understand people's reticence to allow this to become a "race issue." I would suggest that it's less a "race issue" than it is a "racial policy" issue. As I stated earlier, nobody with a working brain can conclude that the Blair Affair shows anything about the abilities or scruples of other Black journalists. It shows that the Times' ADMITTED policy of allowing a particular journalist to get away with things that other journalists would not, simply because he is Black, was stupid and irresponsible. Erik Naft, Attorney Pittsburgh, PA enaft@yahoo.com

Mr. Naft- I beg to differ. The Times never admitted or suggested that he got away with his actions simply bc he is black. If that's the case, then certainly there must be many other cases of journalists that were able to get away with irresponsible behavior simply bc they are black. I'll allow you to provide data to back up that assertion. In the meantime, what the NYTimes did say is that race played a role. But if you read the articles about Jayson you will find that he possessed those certain skills that would make a person very appealing to the big-wigs and decision makers in any corporation regardless of race. He was a brown-noser and shmoozer par excellence. He was charismatic and he knew how to hob-nob with the right people and he was better at that then anyone in his peer group white or black. Although his articles were not qualitatively written, overall they were well-received. He was the type of guy that the executives loved and his peers hated. He was a shiner. The fact that he was black was icing on the cake, but it was not the flour, eggs, milk, or sugar. We need look no further than all of the current corporate scandals to find many examples where the board of directors, employees, and sometimes even the public allowed certain individuals with the right traits to get away with irresponsible behavior for extended periods of time. Most often, the culprit is a white male, but not once have I read or heard of anyone attributing the fact that they were able to get away with reckless behavior to the fact that they were white males. So while we should not ignore the role of race, it is important that we don't over-emphasize it, or use this incident as a launchpad to attack affirmative action or diversity programs. So if you want to criticize the Times, criticize their willingness to allow a good brown-noser to fool them with smoke-n-mirrors not their desire to have a diverse mix of employees through their ranks. Mr. Majik

Nobody at The Times even "suggested" that race fueled the retention of a fraud? Come on. That's just contrary to public statements by The Times and the reflection of insiders. From Salon: "As one New York Times writer tells Salon: 'This really is a story about race.' Underlying the comment is the suspicion that a reporter with a well-documented history of inaccuracies and erratic behavior was able to not only keep his job but also secure plum promotions, because the Times, in the interest of newsroom diversity, was committed to a fault to attracting, and retaining, black journalists." Former NYT editor Howell Raines: "You have a right to ask if I, as a white man from Alabama, with those convictions, gave him one chance too many. When I look into my heart for the truth of that, the answer is yes." So The Times is telling us that it really IS about race. The editor resigned because, admittedly, he erred on the side of giving Blair too many chances because of race. I think there's support for my conclusion. Had Raines said "I'm resigning because I allowed myself to fall victim to the flattery of a brown-noser," then you would have the better of the evidence, Mr. Majik. But the facts are with me. Erik Naft, Attorney Pittsburgh, PA enaft@yahoo.com

We can go tit for tat if you wish. From WSJ's Albert Hunt - "Cheating and lying in journalism, as in other vocations, transcends race" From San Antonio Express-News's Macarena Hernandez (writer of the article that led to Jayson's termination) - "Blair's misdeeds are not, despite what the pundits say, about race, diversity or affirmative action. His story is that of a guy who disrespected his profession, cheated his readers, deceived his editors and stole from his peers. Period. Any other way of looking at it lets Jayson Blair off the hook. I am a product of the same program that supposedly "created" him. And I resent that his crimes will now make suspects of other journalists of color." The truth is that there is a wealth of information out there that we could use to support both of our perspectives. My main point really is that the fraudulent transgressions that he committed are not singular to him being black nor was the fact that he continued to be promoted despite numerous red flags a failure of the diversity program. There are numerous instances throughout corporate America of white males who continued to move up the ranks at their particular company or industry despite having numerous warning signs and blemishes on their track record such that it's hard to imagine that anyone with good judgment would continue to help these individuals advance their careers... But they did what they needed to do to find favor with the right people and sometimes that's all it takes. Mr. Majik

Chris-- The author was not being disingenuous by not mentioning Janet Cooke in his list. He clearly said "there have been plenty of plagiarists and print naer-do-wells of the caucasian persuasion." Why would he mention Cooke when his point discusses the treatment of white journalists who plagarized versus Blair? Erik, I believe that you have missed the point. Why is it that white people can get away with plagarism without the fact that they are white ever coming up but black people cannot? Had Mr. Blair been white, would the issue that white people are promoted because there are people who want to see them succeed and look away from their shortcomings and mistakes ever be discussed? What is ironic is that as much as people complain about the use of double-standards in affirmative action, we are quick to pull out the double-standard when a black person fails. It is clear that all the attention given to this issue proves how much the double-standard exists -- when a black person fails, it is based somehow on the color of their skin, but when a white person fails, it reflects only on themselves. Importantly, it is the fact that this double-standard exists in the minds of many, if not most, that makes affirmative action so needed. If the actions of one man are enough to put the cause of black journalists back even one year, what does that say about how people felt about black journalists to begin with? working in nyc

Even if I were to conceed that the Times admitted to letting Blair slip through the cracks based on his race, that still does not deny the fact that no mention has been made of the fact that mediocre white people slip through the cracks because of their race. By focusing only on the failure of diversity initiatives, the media (and yourself) ignore the fact that the unspoken policy of white priviledge has allowed white people to slip through the cracks much longer than blacks could ever dream to. The "point" truly is, that whether Jayson Blair was tolerated as long as he was because of diversity polices or not, there has, is, and will continue to be an unspoken "policy" that allows mediocre whites to succeed and make as many and as worse mistakes as Blair without as much attention and scrutiny, and certainly without the resignation of the top editors at a top newspaper. Whether you believe it to be a race issue or a racial policy issue, you are continuing to promote the double standard. working in nyc

While Sherman is right to point out that affirmative action ought not to bear the burden of the Blair scandal, he manages to neglect (I wonder if it was willful) that Howell Raines himself admitted at the huge Times meeting after the affair broke, that as a white southern liberal, he unconsciously was more forgiving to Blair for his initial errors than he would have been if he had not been black. This is an understandable impulse, of course, but also an admission by the man who promoted the lying reporter that race was indeed a factor. Moreover, I am not sure what Sherman is reading, but it seems that if anything this angle is being ignored, and not played up. Rob Steinman Montreal, QC

Mr. Majik, to go tit for tat, you must operate within the same framework. Mr. Naft has presented quotes from people responsible to the Times and active in its formulation. You, on the other hand, present outside quotes that might as well be from the Colorado Springs' River Rafting Newsletter as far as showing what the policy of the Times' was regarding the present issue. As such, you appear no more than just that, a tit. Dillon Kuehn dmkuehn@sas.upenn.edu

Your lack of knowledge of this event is clearly evident in your mistakes. Check your facts before embarrassing yourself again. It's "Pinch" Sulzberger, you're referring to, not "Punch." "Punch" was his father, Arthur Ochs, Sr. Also, not sure why you call him "young." He's in his late 40s. Is it b/c he has Jr. attached to his name that you made this assumption? So stupid. MN NYC

There is a lot I would like to respond to. First, to Mr. Majik: You said you wanted to go "tit for tat" with Erik Naft. Well, you didn't. He provided actual quotes from people at the NYT that supported his assertion that Blair was allowed a few too many chances because of his race. You on the other hand provided quotes from people at other papers to the contrary. Show me something that was said by a NYT editor or reporter, and then you have an argument. working in nyc: I am really sick of people using the term "white privilege," so please stop. When was this term created anyway, in the 60s or 70s? Does it stem from some ultra-liberal whites who felt guilty for no reason other than being born with light skin? Of course, you will likely tell me that white privilege allows me to believe that, but let me tell you this, Blair didn't make "mistakes" as you like to call them. This was a man who knowingly and purposely cheated and stole and lied. It would have been a mistake if he didn't realize he had done something wrong, but he did realize it. He LAUGHED about it. Doesn't sound like a mistake to me. Additionally, the NYT has been plagued by scandal, not just Blair but Rick Bragg, who is white. Bragg resigned after being suspended for failing to credit a stringer in an article, a problem that is rumored to be rampant at the NYT. With whether or not that is true, and I would lean toward believing that it is, it would seem to me that the two top editors at the paper would be deserving of such scrutiny and that resignation for the two would be fitting. Funny, it is inexcusable what Blair did and what Bragg did, and both had to face the consequences of those actions, yet they are both of different races. Rob Steinman: Thanks, I thought I was alone on that one. I cannot really recall any point where Blair's race was made to be an issue, and I cannot understand why Eliot Sherman felt the need to make it one. This article should not have been about racial policy at the NYT, as far as I can tell, reporters of all races have been screwing up there and reporters of all races are going to have to take the fall for that. It should have been about the general erosion of journalistic integrity in an Internet-based society which wants it news up to the minute and does not care if a name or two is missing, or a reporter never actually visited the site she is reporting from or even whether or not the event he is reporting on actually ever happened. Matt

There is a lot I would like to respond to. Oh no, there isn't. I already made my point.... and Matt so wonderfully copied and pasted my post. Congratulations. OFSA's investigation is forthcoming. Dillon Kuehn dmkuehn@sas.upenn.edu