Archive for Friday, February 2, 2018

Letter to the editor: Race question

February 2, 2018


To the editor:

On Jan. 28, the Lawrence Journal-World reported on the selection of a new school superintendent. Photos of both final candidates were provided, and the story noted: “The choices are down to two: both black men in their 40s ...” Thus the question: Would the article have stated “both white men in their 40s,” had such been the case? I think not. Does this matter?


Brock Masters 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Great point. If we are to become a colorblind society we must stop focusing on race. The color of their skin in no way defines those two men and therefore is not relevant.

Louis Kannen 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Perhaps someone with your City's newspaper will take a moment to clarify the reasoning behind this, or then again maybe not...

Bob Summers 4 months, 2 weeks ago

"Does this matter"

To some types of people, it matters as much as the sun coming up in the morning.

Skin color is VERY important to some types of people.

It really is as simple as that.

There is nothing to wonder about here.

Rick Masters 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Bob has spoken.

You all may now return to being some types of people.

Kendall Simmons 4 months, 2 weeks ago

And those people couldn't tell from the photo that the men were both black? Hmmm.

Andrew Applegarth 4 months, 2 weeks ago

A good story writer should never assume that any picture, much less any particular picture, will be accompanying the story they are writing. All pertinent details should be included in the written copy. You may feel that such detail was not pertinent, but that's not the argument you went with...

Ken Lassman 4 months, 2 weeks ago

But that's exactly what the author of the LTE argued: it is not pertinent. And to include it shows a racial disparity as any good newspaper writer wouldn't have said "both candidates are white" if that indeed was the case.

Andrew Applegarth 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Not to point out the obvious, but I was responding to Kendall Simmons' comment rather than the LTE. Kendall did not in any way indicate that such information was not pertinent. In fact, Kendall very clearly implied that it was unnecessary simply because they could tell from the picture. I was responding to that statement and that statement alone.

Perhaps I could have been more clear, but with your track record I don't think it would have mattered.

Ken Lassman 4 months, 2 weeks ago

OK, Andrew, thanks for clarifying that your comment is only very narrowly directed toward Kendall's observation. Now do you agree that with the LTE writer that the descriptor was not pertinent? If you do, we agree on the whole issue, and no additional insults from you are necessary--not that they were needed the first time, either.

Andrew Applegarth 4 months, 2 weeks ago

No problem. It's just sad that I had to clarify something that should have been a simple observation.

No, I don't agree that the descriptor was not pertinent. It is a simple fact that is interesting to know. Considering how every "first black" or "first woman" [position of power] within any prominent organization is considered newsworthy, it makes sense it would become newsworthy at the point where that outcome becomes an (almost) certainty.

As for the insults, whether they are needed or not is of little import as you have earned them and so much more. I merely deliver that which you have brought upon yourself.

Ken Lassman 4 months, 2 weeks ago

An interesting stab at making it pertient, Andrew, except for overlooking the little fact that the current superintendent is both black AND and woman. Why not just agree that it was not pertinent, even though this was not a purposeful impertinence? I would think that is probably what the writer of said article was thinking when she/he removed it from the JW website: it is no longer available.

Andrew Applegarth 4 months, 2 weeks ago

First, I would point out that she is an "interim" superintendent who did not make the final cut to actually be hired to the permanent position. I will admit that it does lessen the impact of hiring a black superintendent, but only slightly as, once again, she is only a temp.

As for what the writer was thinking, I would guess it had more to do with who was complaining and how much it was distracting from the story. You may be right about what they were thinking, but I highly doubt it.

Andrew Applegarth 4 months, 2 weeks ago

PS: If you can't think of a situation where "both candidates are white" would be worthy of mention, that would suggest you simply can't think.

Ken Lassman 4 months, 2 weeks ago

I can certainly conclude that your comment is a purely theoretical one and that in the article that the author pointed out, it certainly was not worth mentioning for exactly the reason outlined by the LTE.

Bob Summers 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Poppycock Lassie.

Flesh tone means the world to folk with the condition.

Andrew Applegarth 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Actually, it was not purely theoretical, but thanks for confirming your lack of intellect.

Ken Lassman 4 months, 2 weeks ago

Ha! i won the bet! I said that Andrew is incapable of responding to anything I say without insulting me, and a friend bet me otherwise. Thanks for coming through Andrew: I knew you would.

Andrew Applegarth 4 months, 2 weeks ago

I would suggest your friend should double-check the wording of the bet as I have replied to you without insulting you on a couple of occasions. If the bet was open ended, you actually lost. (I even agreed with one of your posts. It kind of shocked me.) If the bet was restricted to this article, you won. Oh, wait, the reply to the message before this one didn't include an insult. I hadn't read this one yet, so I might have to go back and fix that...

Ken Lassman 4 months, 2 weeks ago

LOL--you should give yourself more credit! The jury is in and has determined that the insults are there and the bet has been paid off. You can now add your officially recognized capabilities to your resume if you wish--and have a great day!

Andrew Applegarth 4 months, 2 weeks ago

How can you expect me not to insult you when you insult me with such lies on a regular basis? I have asked you on multiple occasions to leave me alone and have not responded to any of your lies and ignorance posted in response to others. I only point out the lack of character within your person when you choose to bring it upon yourself by antagonizing me on these forums. You reap what you sow (within the limits placed on truth by the LJ World moderators).

I would strongly suggest that your 'friend' be wary of your dishonesty and reconsider betting with you. If you truly reviewed all of my posts and found insult in every one of them, it is proof that you consider my posting alone, irregardless as to its content, to be an insult and thus the bet was rigged from the start. It's not nice to take advantage of a 'friend' that way. It's quite dishonest and disgusting and . . . Sorry. I forgot who I was talking to and needlessly repeated myself.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.