Spot the racism
Here are two headlines about the same story. One is from Fox News and one is from WHYY. It will take a keen eye, but see if you can spot the racism.
- Starting next year, the exam will be given twice annually — in February and July.
- The “cut” or passing score for the exam of 200 multiple choice questions will be reduced from 145 to 143.
- The number of essays will be cut from eight to four, and the number of areas of the law eligible for essays reduced from 14 to 10.
In addition to modifying the examination, the high court also:
- Reduced clerkship requirement from 21 weeks to 12 weeks.
- Cut the number of legal proceedings potential lawyers must attend from a mandatory list of 25 items to 18 out of 30 potential items.
-
Reduced the late application fee for law school grads and attorneys admitted in other states.
Neither one is a great headline. Fox makes it sound like the (slight) lowering of the exam’s passing score is the only change, probably since that’s the one that would excite and piss off its audience most.
WHYY doesn’t cite the nature of the new standards at all. So is this headline also incomplete or misleading? Without citing the change in qualifications, at least in general, there’s no news here, just the general desire to add diversity. (Maybe it’s implied in the WHYY headline; and neither headline writer had much space to work with).
Both agree the moves are designed to increase racial diversity, but WHYY does it more colorfully. Maybe my eye is not keen enough. What’s your take?
Looking at this again, I realize the WHYY writer could not flatly say “lowering standards.” Maybe the implication is enough, especially since the changes don’t seem to be greatly significant. Maybe it’s only a matter of interpretation.
The Fox News headline is flatly racist and intended to inflame the racism of their audience.
The WHYY headline brings in “changes” and scans as journalism to me and less like agitprop.
Do you think only racists would question whether lower standards are the answer (to this or any other problem)? But yes, Fox is probably racist here since they know most of their audience won’t respond to this in an objective, rational way. But I can imagine Fox being a lot more racist than this. Generally I’m against all agitprop unless clearly labeled, as an opinion column etc.Thanks for getting back to me.
I’m not sure what to make of your response. Are saying ‘yes, but racism is also in the eye of the beholder.’ ? If so, ok sure.
But also anti-black racism is clearly the point of the headline. It’s not my interpretation.
I think the answer to my first question about standards isn’t as clear-cut as you suggest. Rational people can be unified against racism but think there are better ways to fight it than lowering academic or professional standards. (In the big scheme of things, although lowering standards might be a negative, I don’t actually think it’s big one.) How about if instead we spent a whole lot more money on education at poor schools so more people can meet those standards? That’s hardly a Fox idea. I guess I don’t think all attempts to fight racism are of equal value.
Your idea that the headline is racist is indeed matter of interpretation, but like you — and knowing Fox — I interpret it as racist too.
I question the whole idea that “lowering standards” (if that’s indeed what these changes represent) is somehow going to make the Delaware bar more diverse. With lower standards, lots of people who aren’t minorities also will benefit.
IOW, the entire premise here is a false one.
Then there would actually be no racial aspect to any of this, although it looks like both sides here think there is.