Was New York Times Editor Jill Abramson Fired for Pointing Out Gender Pay Disparity?
Jill Abramson was removed from her position as executive editor of The New York Times on Wednesday without warning. Now it’s been revealed by several sources, including The New Yorker, that Abramson had recently complained she was being paid significantly less than her Y-chromosome carrying predecessor, which some believe may have led to her dismissal. […]
Jill Abramson was the first woman to head The New York Times. Her tenure lasted from 2011 to 2014. (AP/Evan Agostini, File)
Jill Abramson was removed from her position as executive editor of The New York Times on Wednesday without warning. Now it’s been revealed by several sources, including The New Yorker, that Abramson had recently complained she was being paid significantly less than her Y-chromosome carrying predecessor, which some believe may have led to her dismissal. If misogyny played a role in her termination, the Times certainly has some explaining to do.
For those of you wondering who her replacement will be, it’s the newspaper’s former managing editor, Dean Baquet, who, according to Slate, “will be the newspaper’s first ever black executive editor.”
Think Progress:
The full facts behind why Jill Abramson is no longer the Executive Editor of the New York Times are not yet known, although the Times itself says that Abramson was “dismissed.” Early news reports offer several legitimate reasons why she may have been fired. The Times‘s own reporting says that there were “serious tensions in her relationship with [Publisher Arthur] Sulzberger, many of them over his concerns about her management.” Meanwhile, the New Yorker‘s Ken Auletta reports that Abramson “had already clashed with the company’s C.E.O., Mark Thompson, over native advertising and the perceived intrusion of the business side into the newsroom,” and that one of Abramson’s top deputies complained to Sulzberger about a personnel issue. If Abramson was fired for being a poor manager, or because of a disagreement over the company’s advertising strategy, or for some similar matter, then those are entirely lawful reasons to let her go…
[However, if] she was, in fact, fired because she complained about gender discrimination in pay…then the Times may have violated federal civil rights law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not simply ban employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” it also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain about alleged discrimination.
—Posted by Natasha Hakimi Zapata
’TIS THE REASON…You know the story. Independent journalism is under threat and overshadowed by heavily funded mainstream media. During this holiday season, you can help level the playing field. Become a member.
Your tax-deductible contribution keeps us digging beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that unearth what's really happening- without compromise. Give today to support our courageous, independent journalists.
As always, we wish you truth, reason and the best of the season!
Courts & Law
The court will examine whether a disabled advocate can sue hotels without being a guest. Advocates say independent civil rights testers are vital to ADA enforcement.
TD Interview
Bethann Hardison & Frédéric Tcheng on bringing black beauty out of the shadows and onto the runways.
Labor
To build a better future for workers, we must recognize the racist and blood-stained history of U.S. labor and the shortcomings of the labor movement’s past.
Courts & Law
The probe is designed to determine whether the police department is guilty of systemic constitutional violations.
Courts & Law
Sotomayor's dissent should be read by every American and taught in colleges and universities.
Courts & Law
Diversity advocates are pushing to end legacy admissions while conservatives are taking steps that will make it harder for students of color to go to college.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.