Sunday, January 16, 2005
Catering to Redneck Thought in the Worst Way
Not Always Diplomatic in Her First Major Post: "But critics say Rice was harsh, even ruthless, during her administration, the one time in her gilded career she has overseen a large institution. Improbably, the youngest provost in Stanford history and the first black and woman to hold the post helped prompt a Labor Department probe into the treatment of women and minorities."
It is always interesting to read a hit piece by liberal leaning media, because their standards of equal opportunity and investigation matter little when they disagree politically. With this article, they seem to be catering to the lowest common denominator in our redneck world. Here, they intimate that she was hired only because she was black and a woman, but did not give special treatment to other minorities if they did not produce. They intimate a harsh style, where they would be less likely to if they were referring to a man. By suggesting that she never really deserved the job to begin with, they are able to call into question every decision that she made, but it is all a bit silly. She was a special advisor to the first Bush Administration, a Soviet scholar, and more than a bit deserving of high posts at this institution. Her harsh style is to be lauded in a university where tenure allows for bad behavior and off-the-wall curriculum. I agree that we should delve into anyone's background who is put up for high posts in the Administration, but a piece like this does nothing but get the rednecks to remember that she is a woman and black. Shame on the LA Times.
It is always interesting to read a hit piece by liberal leaning media, because their standards of equal opportunity and investigation matter little when they disagree politically. With this article, they seem to be catering to the lowest common denominator in our redneck world. Here, they intimate that she was hired only because she was black and a woman, but did not give special treatment to other minorities if they did not produce. They intimate a harsh style, where they would be less likely to if they were referring to a man. By suggesting that she never really deserved the job to begin with, they are able to call into question every decision that she made, but it is all a bit silly. She was a special advisor to the first Bush Administration, a Soviet scholar, and more than a bit deserving of high posts at this institution. Her harsh style is to be lauded in a university where tenure allows for bad behavior and off-the-wall curriculum. I agree that we should delve into anyone's background who is put up for high posts in the Administration, but a piece like this does nothing but get the rednecks to remember that she is a woman and black. Shame on the LA Times.
