NPR's Uri Berliner Has Shown That DEI Is About Punishing Heresy
The long-time public radio editor's resignation proves he was right all along.

Uri Berliner, a long-time editor at National Public Radio (NPR), has resigned from the media organization.
His saga began last week after he published an essay for Bari Weiss' The Free Press in which he criticized creeping liberal groupthink at his place of employment. Many NPR employees were furious that he would "torch his workplace," though Berliner's piece carefully noted that he still believes the outlet is important and should continue to receive government funding.
For writing about his own outlet without seeking permission from his bosses, Berliner was suspended for five days without pay. But ultimately, he has chosen to resign.
"I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new CEO whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay," he said, referencing statements made by NPR CEO Katherine Maher—whose considerable history of tweeting woke nonsense is now under public scrutiny as well.
And he is quite correct. Berliner's article for Weiss concludes with this thought: "What's notable is the extent to which people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview. And this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity."
Berliner cited Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and coverage of the lab leak theory of COVID-19's origins as coverage areas where NPR's bias in favor of the progressive, establishment Democratic Party perspective led the outlet astray. A media company that did not completely dismiss non-progressive opinions out of hands might have fared better.
The absence of viewpoint diversity at NPR should be no surprise, however, when its CEO apparently believes that ideological diversity is a "dog whistle for anti-feminist, anti-POC stories." For Maher, diversity involves "race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability, geography"—everything except diversity of thought.
That Silicon Valley v Russia thread was pretty funny — until it got onto ideological diversity. In case it's not evident, in these parts that's often a dog whistle for anti-feminist, anti-POC stories about meritocracy. Maybe's not what the author meant. But idk, maybe it is?
— Katherine Maher (@krmaher) July 6, 2018
And Maher is not alone. Some 50 of Berliner's colleagues signed a letter to Maher demanding that she enforce NPR's current editorial line by weaponizing all available tools at her disposal.
"Staff, many from marginalized backgrounds, have pushed for internal policy changes through mechanisms like the [diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)] accountability committee, sharing of affinity group guidelines, and an ad-hoc content review group," they wrote. Elsewhere in the letter they put the term diversity of viewpoints in scare quotes.
It certainly does not sound like the DEI accountability committee works to broaden NPR's ideological perspective. On the contrary, the employees who are obsessed with DEI seem to care first and foremost about rooting out anti-DEI heresy.
Now Berliner is not a victim of cancel culture: Most journalistic organizations would exercise some disciplinary authority over an employee who publicly discussed internal company policies without prior approval. But there should be little question that he accurately described a real problem at a (regrettably taxpayer-funded) media outlet. The acronym DEI ostensibly stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion—and the public is learning precisely what those terms really mean.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Berliner cited Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and coverage of the lab leak theory of COVID-19's origins as coverage areas where NPR's bias in favor of the progressive, establishment Democratic Party perspective led the outlet astray.
NPR went with the facts - that the Trump campaign and Paul Manafort colluded with Kremlin officials, that no useful data was found on the laptop (just some dick pics), and that the origin of the Covid virus is unknown.
Katherine Maher is an Open Societies acolyte. Lol.
Strategist, technologist and policy expert Katherine Maher is an advocate for free and open societies.
(from her Ted Talk page)
Yeah, I suspected you would hate "free and open societies".
Her free and open societies sure do involve a lot of censorship and casual racism.
You Sorosites abuse 'open society' in the same way authoritarian communist dictatorships like sticking "democratic' in their name.
And "people's" don't forget "people's"...
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Lao People's Democratic Republic
People's Democratic Republic of Yemen
China leaves out the "Democratic"
People's Republic of China
All the best communist hotspots like to brand their dictatorships this way.
I mean her quotes show she isn't actually for freedom. Just like Soros. Lol.
Small wonder JesseAz abhors the ideals of the Open Society - first described by the French-Jewish philosopher Henri Bergson, expanded on by Hungarian-Jewish philosopher Karl Popper, and promoted by Hungarian-Jewish capitalist and philanthropist George Soros. "It's all foreign Jews!" Poor JesseAz, perhaps he's worried he might be killed and his blood used to make matzot.
The only link I can find between Maher and the Open Society is that she was on the board of Wikimedia to which Soros has donated. There may be a closer connection, but I couldn't find it.
expanded on by Hungarian-Jewish philosopher Karl Popper
You mean the leftist who came up with the "paradox of tolerance" in his defense of open societies, which Herbert Marcuse expanded upon to mean that anything on the left should be tolerated, and anything on the right should not be tolerated?
Sounds a like a great reason to reject them, as a society is not required to support its own subversion.
And why should the tolerant acquiesce to the intolerant?
The Paradox was an observation - not a solution.
Your first sentence has so much irony lol.
No different than ANTIFA or By Any Means Necessary, just different words.
Because that is what true pluralism is.
Retard.
As a member of the intolerant right do you feel we have achieved "true pluralism"?
Why do you have a “2” after your name, pedo?
Only tolerance he really cares about is pedophilia anyways.
That doesn't matter, I don't espouse it, you do.
Live by your fucking principles.
And why should the tolerant acquiesce to the intolerant?
Why should the intolerant acquiesce to the "tolerant," who aren't actually tolerant of anything except left-wing ideology?
The Paradox was an observation – not a solution.
Stop lying.
Popper wasn't a leftist. He did flirt with the left in his youth but grew out of it - as evidenced by his book "the Poverty of Historicism". (Marxism as an historical analysis is essentially historicist.)
And the paradox of tolerance can readily be resolved in at least two ways. Popper did address it thus:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
I don't see how you can criticise Popper for Marcuse, any more than you can criticise Jesus for the Inquisition.
Popper wasn’t a leftist.
Yeah, he was. Just because he decided to leave the Communist Party didn’t make him any less of one.
I don’t see how you can criticise Popper for Marcuse, any more than you can criticise Jesus for the Inquisition.
Because Marcuse basically just rephrased the passage you copypasta’d from Wikipedia in “Repressive Tolerance,” using the same logic in a more explicit fashion that the right should always be intolerated, and the left always tolerated.
It's like how shrike and shrike claim fascism isn't on the left because they fought communists for control foe the same end game abd authoritarianism.
Popper was a leftist because Red-Rocks-for-"Brains" says so!!!
Nothing like authoritarian tribalism to firmly decide the matter! Or else the boots come down on YOU!!!
When you guys become Soros acolytes, do you go through the same brainwashing as Scientologists? You guys use the same rationalization schemes.
SRG2, thanks for the Popper quote! I'm saving it! I have been (on and off) for MANY years saying, "Tolerate all but intolerance". There's nothing new under the Sun!
I abhor the actions of authoritarians hidden behind bland statements. Like Open Societies.
I also don’t believe in benevolent dictators for the same reasons.
Do you want the list of actions?
Censorship.
Globalism.
Corporatism/fascism.
Buying off politicians (such as DA offices to go against legislatively passed laws).
Funding violent protestors.
Also youre projecting your antisemitism again.
Enough about Trumpism.
Stick to the subject.
Fuck off lying pedo.
This is all you've become. Gaslighting and deflection lol.
Your hero is one of the biggest political spenders in history to capture government.
Seriously though Plugstick, Soros and his fascist pals use all sorts of high minded names, but all they ever practice is censorship, corporatism, bribery, instigation and authoritarianism.
Rich from a Donnie "free press is the enemy, PPP grifting, Ukraine bribing, anti-democracy, Jan 6 violent insurrection" Zombie.
Not one of which actually happened outside the fevered dreams of Sorosite and DNC dupes.
But my examples certainly fucking did. It is admirably gutsy for you to try and attribute Ukrainian bribery to anyone but Joe, though. You've got no shame, I'll give you that.
TBF, there was plenty of grifting with PPP. Shrike would know, seeing as how his Democrat paymasters wrote the damn thing.
Everything else is straight bullshit, but what do you expect from him.
I wonder if he believes every advertising slogan.
Why don't you explain to us how an Open Society is authoritarian?
Sure. It was the source of Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg and Letitia James election campaign's funding. All who ran on the promise to find a crime to charge Trump with.
When you’re funding the Administration’s drive to imprison it’s political opponents you’re utterly fucking authoritarian.
But I know you know this and not only do you not care, you think it's a good thing.
You’re being intentionally obtuse. He capitalized the words, indicating he was talking about the group, not the idea.
And any group can be authoritarian (it helps when you espouse one world government bullshit and support things like shutting down the economy)
Shrike would support a benevolent dictators as long as he claimed he was for freedom and liberty despite his actions. Full on leftist retard.
Did you see the list shrike? Are you that brainwashed? Want all the far left advocacy he funds? Want all the politicians he buys? Want all the censorship groups he funds? Want all the activist riots he funds? Want all the lawyers he uses to keep his maoist army going from protest to violent protest?
How in denial are you?
Another one for you shrike. She is even anti 1a. Definitely Open Society material. Lol.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1780597079439446250
Small wonder JesseAz abhors the ideals of the Open Society
They can't fathom how a rich capitalist is not a knee-jerk Republican. Despite the fact most of them aren't.
I can fathom how he got rich though, earning $1.5 billion in just a single month by trying to crash the British pound. Many lost their pensions because of him.
In fact everything he did to earn money was scabby and borderline illegal.
Many lost their pensions because of him.
How?
ML doesn't know. He thinks currency trading is unusual.
Global FX trading hits record $7.5 trln a day - BIS survey
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/global-fx-trading-hits-record-75-trln-day-bis-survey-2022-10-27/
Shorting isn't normal currency trading, retard. Just like price fluctuations in commodities isn't deflation.
You're too stupid and lazy to shill here. Go watch Jeffy, at least he puts a little thought and effort into making shit up.
Here is the funny Soros behaviors shrike and shrike will ignore. It isnt just him shorting but it is him shorting then encouraging civil disruption to sow chaos to drive value into the short. He does this in various industries as well. Buying up energy property then driving democrats to kill leases on federal lands. The entire business model of Soros is to use political power and activism to drive his own profit. Have seen this in many different countries. Enriching himself at the expense of society.
But Soros creates a website saying how good he is, forms a cult akin to the red guard, buys politicians, and idiots like shrike and shrike worship him for it.
Soros' biggest investments are literally politicians.
It's right in my comment, shithead. Here's another article on it.
Black Wednesday: George Soros's Bet Against Britain
A capitalist who uses the levers of the state to enrich himself. Wait. Thats fascism. Whoops.
Is it hard to use so many different socks all day?
I prefer the term "Brain-dead lefturd."
-jcr
Fuck off lying pedo.
"NPR went with the facts – that the Trump campaign and Paul Manafort colluded with Kremlin officials, that no useful data was found on the laptop (just some dick pics),"
The only difference between NPR and SPB2 is that:
1) Even NPR realized that this line was bullshit and owned up to it many moons ago, because they have a shred of integrity. It says A HUGE AMOUNT that SPB2 continues to cling to these tired talking points after even NPR abandoned them.
2) NPR has not been caught posting links to child porn and banned from this site, as SPB2 was. The same lack of integrity that leads SPB2 to post known-bad facts on Reason is the same lack of integrity that keeps him from sulking away in shame for how disgusting he is.
Two lies!
You doubled up.
No, the only liar here is you, dipshit.
He’s gotten so lazy he’s finally resorted to just yelling “lies!!!” without bothering to make an argument.
This is why Open Society fired him in the first place.
He learned that one from sarc. They are trading ignorant behaviors now.
Say, why do you have a two after your name, shrike?
You went full retard, Shrike. Never go full retard.
You're asking a double retard to not restrain himself to only full retard?
You wouldn’t know a fact if it fell out of Obama’s ass.
I love how you state that went with facts...then lie. Nothing but lie.
Par for the course.
Your first statement is outright false. Here’s a quote from the Mueller report, p2: “the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. ”
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl
the absence of viewpoint diversity.
Should NPR posit the Creation "viewpoint" to balance out Natural Selection in their science reporting?
And which Creation theory? For diversity maybe they should horn in all the Creation myths into their reporting.
Anything to placate conservatives, right?
“Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.”
New NPR Ceo and Open Society member. Continue to deflect.
Well, turd lies, so why wouldn’t he support a justification for lying?
He even brought out his soros loving British sock.
Stop lying, Matzo Boy.
“Matzo Boy”
Is this some sort of anti-Semitic slur? Was Diet Shrike Herr Misek all along?
Yeah. Shrike projects his antisemitism towards me a lot. It is weird. I'm not even Jewish.
Just to clarify, I'm Jewish, JesseAz is an antisemite, and "matzo boy" comes from my earlier jibe that perhaps JesseAz is afraid that Jews will kill him and use his blood for matzot.
soros loving British sock.
I don't love Soros but I have more time for him than most billionaires who get involved in politics - after all he was the only one who funded attempts at democracy in the ex-Soviet republics.
Nor am I anyone's sock, as is bloody obvious to all but the feeble-minded or wantonly ignorant.
But you got the "British" right, so overall 33%.
Oh, and as far as Soros and the pound is concerned - blame Thatcher and Major for putting the pound into the ERM at the wrong rate. Soros was by no means the only trader out there shorting the pound. If he had been, it wouldn't have worked. And interesting to see that in a conflict between a free and regulated market, some right-wingers here prefer regulated. Had Britain not gone into the ERM, or had gone in at a market-driven rate, Soros and other traders wouldn't have had any opportunity to bet against the pound.
It was pretty amusing seeing sterling rates briefly go over 300% - and what stopped further bloodshed was that the collapse happened on a Wednesday.
Hey shrike!
Still projecting your antisemitism i see. Lol.
Same sort of racism and intolerance as the primary handle shows all the time.
Love how the progressives always claim to be anti-racist then churn out these bigots as their representatives in public.
Uri Berliner...has resigned from the media organization.
I am struggling to give the tiniest fraction of a fuck for an NPR employee who feels it is important to remind me he went to Sarah Lawrence, was raised by lesbians and still "believes the outlet...should continue to receive government funding", has been sacrificed at the alter he reclined on for decades. The silver lining is his petard hoisting just might reignite the movement to get NPR, PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting off the dole.
Agree it is difficult to feel sympathy for members of the Red Guard as they plead their case while standing in front of the firing squad.
The young idealist red guard were sent to work camps just like their enemies when they became inconvenient to the powers.
George Soros, founder of Open Society Foundations, invests in the future of free and open knowledge
.
Wikimedia believes that free knowledge is the foundation for human potential, opportunity, and freedom
Ha! That must burn your little tendies.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2018/10/15/george-soros-invests-future-free-open-knowledge/
Soros supports releasing murderers, rapists, and thieves back out on the street. If that’s an “open society,” then anyone promoting it should be yeeted into the ocean. "Free and open knowledge" in lefty parlance means "anything our ideology demands."
Viva Orban.
Cite? You're lying.
Soros objects to police brutality. At one time that was a libertarian goal too.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/soros-donated-250000-fiscal-sponsor-louisville-bail-fund
https://www.ericmoutsos.com/soros-backed-org-minnesota-freedom-fund-releasing-murderers-rapists-from-jail/
They have a running bail fund for violent rioters across the globe.
Police brutality has nothing to do with funding a violent society. We know you love him for funding DAs that love to release pedophiles though.
That is about the Tides Foundation which sends funds to dozens of different NGOs like the Campaign to Defend the Constitution. Donations find their way down the ladder. Tides is run by someone else.
You got nothing.
We get it. You support a nazi.
Wow. The open lies you generate to defend your wannabe dictator with a self admitted God complex. Lol.
♪ Soros, Soros, über alles,
über alles in der Welt ♪
“Instead of setting out to protect the community, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner has turned her prosecutor’s office into a social justice laboratory to reduce the incarceration of minorities, with the help of a far-left George Soros-linked group.”
“The Vera Institute trained Gardner’s staff to believe that “an over-reliance on incarceration does not make communities safer.”
Gardner herself has infamously boasted that in 2018 she declined to prosecute 64% of the cases brought to her office.”
We experienced it firsthand here in St. Louis. But, I should believe you over my own lying eyes.
https://heartlandernews.com/2023/03/07/st-louis-circuit-attorney-kim-gardners-agenda-revealed-fox-says-soros-backed-group-trained-her-office-in-how-not-to-prosecute/
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner says her office will stop requesting cash bail for many low-level felonies, such as drug possession.
That 64%?
A libertarian position for sure. Good for her. That "Soros-linked" donation is appropriate.
Are you aware that this is a libertarian site?
Violent crime, murder, and theft all up!
You mean marxism. Not libertarianism.
“low level felonies, drug possession"
I know, like your fascist hero Donnie you want drug dealers executed.
Just go back to Bratfart with the other Republicans.
I know, like your fascist hero Donnie you want drug dealers executed.
LOL, your fellow Democrat Hochul had to literally call out the National Guard because your fellow Democrats are attacking other fellow Democrats in the subways.
The logical end of the Soros "open society," which isn't actually open to anything other than turning the entire west into a Third World shithole.
Murder is a low level felony? Lol.
You guys ask for cites and then you don't read and / or hate the cite.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12520757/Crime-prosecution-St-Louis-Gabe-Gore-George-Soros-Kim-Gardner.html
"One of the final cases that Gardner oversaw was a Cinco de Mayo shooting, which the DA refused to press charges against the suspected woman for due to a 'lack of evidence' despite surveillance images of the suspect wielding a gun."
Low level felony! - shrike
They have the receipts. It's all there.
The Soros-funded group said 'hey, stop prosecuting so many black and brown people' and came by to train them on how to do it.
Afterwards, the prosecutor's office stopped prosecuting for all sorts of crime. Not just victimless crimes like expired plates or low-level drug offenses. Violent crime. Assaults. Battery. Muggings. Armed robbery. Murders. Based on melanin levels. By policy. That's objectively terrible.
We experienced it firsthand here in St. Louis. But, I should believe you over my own lying eyes.
And yet the evidence you present here are: (1) your anecdotes, and (2) a right-wing opinion piece.
Do you not see how these are not persuasive nor convincing arguments to anyone who is not already in the right-wing tribe?
The opinion piece in particular is designed to slant the facts towards their preferred narrative. That is the whole point of opinion pieces in the first place.
So when your source cites "she declined to prosecute 64% of cases", I can almost guarantee that there are some underlying/mitigating facts behind that 64% number that are NOT being presented. As SBP pointed out below, perhaps that 64% are low-level offenses that really shouldn't be prosecuted anyway. Or that 64% figure is calculated in a deceptive way so as to unfairly exaggerate the figure. Because this is an opinion piece and not a rigorous study, we can't be sure.
So when your source cites “she declined to prosecute 64% of cases”, I can almost guarantee that there are some underlying/mitigating facts behind that 64% number that are NOT being presented.
chemtard radical deathfat simping for murderers, rapists, and thieves.
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/investigations/missouri-attorney-general-releases-final-report-on-st-louis-circuit-attorney-kim-gardner-investigation/63-d06ed36b-58dd-4a76-ab7a-41270a226faf
“The I-Team first reported that driver, Daniel Riley, was supposed to go to trial for an alleged armed robbery months before that crash, but didn’t, because Gardner’s office was not ready to go to trial.
Charges were refiled. Riley was put on house arrest without objection from Gardner’s office. And he violated that house arrest multiple times without anyone from Gardner’s office asking a judge to put him in jail.
Janae Edmondson lost both of her legs as a result of the crash.”
Janae thanks you for your ‘almost guarantee’. I’m sure.
"Gore will have his work cut out for him. The circuit attorney's office has been plagued in past years by low staff levels, high turnover and dysfunction resulting in numerous murder cases falling through the cracks. "
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/gabriel-gore-to-become-st-louis-circuit-attorney-40090760
Please, go ahead and try to paint the RFT as a right-wing source.
Wow.
He gained 100 lbs and his face is too fat to put the mask back on.
So when your source cites “she declined to prosecute 64% of cases”
She IS the source for THAT claim. Did you fail to read the source material?
"Gardner herself has infamously boasted that in 2018 she declined to prosecute 64% of the cases brought to her office."
Wingnut.com alt-right news source NPR (which was linked to in the original):
https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2019-01-30/gardner-pledges-more-court-diversion-less-cash-bail
Jeff doesn't read sources that aren't from his left leaning websites. Your cite didn't even praise Dark Brandon. Jeff thinks it is garbage.
I mean, NPR is probably considered somewhere between unbiased and a tad conservative in some circles.
I mean, they employed URI Berliner, so obviously right-wing (like Weiss and Greenwald).
I can almost guarantee that there are some underlying/mitigating facts behind that 64% number that are NOT being presented.
Note how he frames the evidence necessary to believe something negative of anyone on the left. Charges must be proven and exculpatory evidence is simply assumed to exist. Can we point to a similar approach when the target of criticism is on the right? Of course not, in those cases he jumps to the most extreme interpretation while demanding evidence to prove the criticism false. Put another way, jeffey requires the left be proven wrong to break his support, but the right has to be proven correct to earn his support. Since most opinions have insufficient evidence to prove them right or wrong the effective result is to support whatever the left says and attack whatever the right says. We see this is consistent with effectively all of his comments. He likes to pretend he judges based on evidence, but applying these different standards means he's just blindly accepting or attacking everything based on his team membership.
This is the result of the In-group vs Out-group approach which Scott Alexander wrote an internet-famous essay on a decade or so ago. It shows how hyper-partisans convince themselves they are rational evaluators when they are anything but.
"but the right has to be proven correct to earn his support. "
His rules work out to "The right cannot be proven correct, nor earn his support."
And North Korea declares itself a republic.
You and your sock hide behind words while ignoring the actual actions. Just like the Red Guard did under Mao.
He didn't deserve to be singled out by his fellow lefturds for speaking up about them going off the deep end. He deserved to lose his job with all the rest of them as a result of the public getting disgusted with them and withdrawing their contributions.
-jcr
Diversity in science is not just for optics. We need scientists from diverse backgrounds in all senses of the word—
race, ethnicity, gender, class, ability,geography, etc. Only this will ensure we are asking a diversity of research questions.Scientists can't ask diverse questions unless they're standing on the right dirt. Magic dir... I mean Science!
Again, these people aren't worldly intellectuals. They're uncultured/cultureless back hills morons who live inside their own heads instead of the hills.
At least the kid with the banjo in Deliverance learned to play more than one note. What's Maher's excuse?
>unless they’re standing on the right dirt.
I'm looking in the scientific method for the word "terroir".
Seriously, this level of racist stupidity is blowing my mind. Imagine thinking someone like Fibonacci's contribution to science weren't diverse enough because he was white.
Seems reasonable. At first I would discount diversity entirely - like you. But:
Prior work finds a diversity paradox: Diversity breeds innovation, yet underrepresented groups that diversify organizations have less successful careers within them. Does the diversity paradox hold for scientists as well? We study this by utilizing a near-complete population of ∼1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977 to 2015 and following their careers into publishing and faculty positions. We use text analysis and machine learning to answer a series of questions: How do we detect scientific innovations? Are underrepresented groups more likely to generate scientific innovations? And are the innovations of underrepresented groups adopted and rewarded? Our analyses show that underrepresented groups produce higher rates of scientific novelty. However, their novel contributions are devalued and discounted: For example, novel contributions by gender and racial minorities are taken up by other scholars at lower rates than novel contributions by gender and racial majorities, and equally impactful contributions of gender and racial minorities are less likely to result in successful scientific careers than for majority groups. These results suggest there may be unwarranted reproduction of stratification in academic careers that discounts diversity’s role in innovation and partly explains the underrepresentation of some groups in academia.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1915378117
Magnificent circular reasoning in that statement there.
"At least the kid with the banjo in Deliverance learned to play more than one note."
He didn't though. The kid was chosen because of how he looked, a banjo player was behind him playing.
"Lonnie, played by Billy Redden, appears mute and even inbred. Director John Boorman scouted Redden at a nearby Georgia high school. Although the first-time actor was perfectly healthy, Boorman felt his unusual appearance fulfilled what the Deliverance script described as "inbred."
"Billy Redden could not play the banjo. In order to film alongside Ronny Cox, who really played, Redden wore a special shirt that allowed local musician Mike Addis to strum the instrument, hiding his own arms in Redden's sleeves.
OK. The kid with the banjo in Deliverance had someone who could actually play the banjo play more than one note in order to give the impression of his ability to play more than one note. What's Maher's excuse?
Does that avoid offense to whatever inbred peoples on whatever hill in your own head you've been living on or should I go on about how Maher isn't scientific or objective or worldly and is pulling shit out of her ass every bit as much as any "God Hates Fags" Westboro Baptist Activist?
To be fair, if they're referring to quasi and pseudo scientific fields like psychology and sociology, it is probably important to have people with completely different backgrounds.
Just popped in with my alt account (since my main account is banned) because I couldn’t quite let this one go (and whoa, has Reason printed some doozies over the last couple of weeks that have been, um, difficult to let pass but I grit my teeth and move on). Anyhoo, I do appreciate the article, Robby, but uh, it wasn’t Uri Berliner who has shown us that DEI is a toxic pit of snakes. Every *checks Reason article from yesterday* “right-winger” with defensive knife wounds on his hands has been telling us, and bringing us the receipts about how DEI is a toxic pit of snakes.
All Uri Berliner did was… raise his hand from inside the toxic pit of snakes and said, “Yes, what you see before you is a toxic pit of snakes, and as someone inside the toxic pit of snakes, I can confirm that it is in fact, a toxic pit of snakes.”
Well done.
You got the ban hammer?
I guess if she hears all those dog whistles, she is a bitch?
Now Berliner is not a victim of cancel culture: Most journalistic organizations would exercise some disciplinary authority over an employee who publicly discussed internal company policies without prior approval.
1. Uri isn’t a victim of cancel culture. The only reason it would be an issue is if you assume a retarded definition of cancel culture where anyone getting fired for any reason constitutes cancellation and/or culture. In line with that…
2. You realize that it’s 2024, right? That we all know about the Twitter files, the Facebook files, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and all of the rest, right? That the only reason you would pretend that journalistic organizations totally wouldn’t vindictively persecute James Damore or Nick Sandmann or John Paul Mac Isaac or Bari Weiss or Matt Taibbi… has precisely fuck all to do with ethics or personal morals, right?
I believe if I go to the style-guide, Berliner is what we'd call a "whistleblower". I'll let journalistic enterprises discuss amongst themselves on how to deal with whistleblowers inside their own organizations.
I’ll let journalistic enterprises discuss amongst themselves on how to deal with whistleblowers inside their own organizations.
This still creates a unique class among the people who can declare themselves or each other private entities out of convenience. While I don’t disagree that anyone should dictate how various orgs should handle any such issues specifically, the idea that, today, most would handle it well or correctly or morally is less credible than anything JPII, Benedictus, or Francis has said about The Catholic Church’s self-conduct over the last 30 yrs.
He's a whistleblower like the guy testifying before Congress about Boeing. There's a time when asking for permission is not only stupid but immoral. Our institutions would be less predatory of we had more whistleblowers.
Just for fun I will be checking back to see if any of our resident conservatives can find any real dirt on Katherine Maher.
So far we just have "woke". Weak tea, bitches.
How about
firessuspends dissidents?That's Soros stuff, so pedo loves that.
Just her critical theory based public speeches. But that is part for the course of Soros acolytes lol.
Berliner is a quitter and a misfit. Much like Bari Weiss (who strives to perfect the practice).
A junior varsity player like Soave naturally idolizes him.
How stupid did you feel when your favorite "super-precedent" got overturned by a Supreme Court you predicted would have a 7 - 6 liberal majority?
Was it as stupid as you felt when the same Court gutted race preferences?
His ignorance and stupidity is only surpassed by shrike.
I already knew what DEI means, to the people who belong to that church. They're evil.
DEI means Democrats Exorcising Individuality... Ass if only socialistic all-is-for-the-hive mentality should prevail, and individual free will counts for NOTHING!!! Individuality needs to be CAST OUT, like Demons!!!
Sadly, it is ONE choice... The OTHER main choice is REI, which means Rethugglicans Exorcising Individuality!!! "Team L" (which actually DOES support individuality) is some sort of neglected bastard child!
Go finger! And my middle finger to the whole shit-fest!
Elsewhere in the letter they put the term diversity of viewpoints in scare quotes.
Oh no, not the scare quotes!
There is a legitimate point to be made here, and there is one that is not.
Should there be more diversity of viewpoints when it comes to, say, issues of taxes and spending, issues of abortion or capital punishment? Sure. Those are issues for which reasonable evidence-based opinions may be found from multiple perspectives.
Should there be more "diversity of viewpoints" when it comes to, say, the flat earth viewpoint? Or whether "birds aren't real"? Of course not. The evidence for these claims is bullshit.
So what about the claims in the middle of this continuum? Such as, say, the 2020 election was stolen? Or that vaccines cause autism, or the COVID vaccine is worse than the COVID disease itself? Or that man-made climate change is a "hoax"? They are false claims, but nonetheless a lot of people believe in them. Should a credible news organization platform and ratify these false claims by presenting "both sides"? Sometimes "diversity of viewpoint" is really just code for smuggling in bullshit into the discourse.
Who cares about stolen elections?!?! Spermy Daniels, for one, only cares about stolen ERECTIONS!!!!
Ass Sung by Spermy Daniels, AKA Dolly Hard-On
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
I’m beggin’ you, please don’t take His Elections!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
Please don’t crush My Man’s Erections!
Your polls are woke beyond compare,
You’re the VERY best at sniffing hair!
Labor unions flock to your door,
Your pork barrels, they all adore!
You tell them what they want to hear,
Bidin’ yer time, to throw My Man out on His ear!
My Man still grabs my pussy,
Along with many another hussy!
Don’t steal my Man’s erection!
Else He’ll sink into much dejection!
I am still His Special Queen,
Specially glazed in Vaseline!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
I’m beggin’ you, please don’t take His Elections!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
Please don’t crush My Man’s Erections!
You could have most ANY hair to sniff,
Yet you keep My Man from getting stiff!
My Man, He needs to be pussy-grabbing,
Yet you call His Lies; prevent confabbing!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, leave My Man alone!
I’m the only, lonely one who needs His Bone!
You don’t know twat He means to me,
He stands on me and takes a pee!
Upon my ancient flower,
He gives a Golden Shower!
To Him, should go ALL Power!
Upon Him, I bestow a blow-job,
To Joe-Bob, He’ll send a snow-job!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
I’m beggin’ you, please don’t take His Elections!
Joe Lean, Joe Mean, Joe Lean, Joe Mean,
Please don’t crush My Man’s Erections!
HELP me get the word out!!!
#SingItForUsSpermyDaniels
chemtard radical deathfat simping for his lefty boos again.
oh look, the proto-fascist who wants to spread fascism via disingenuous claims of 'ideological diversity'
“proto-fascist”
Red Rocks has called for a strong central government that controls every aspect of the economy through coercion, intimidation, or sometimes straight nationalization?
No. Thats jeff who does that. Oh.
Yes, to leftists, anyone who resists their political ideology is a fascist.
Why don’t you tell us again how restricting immigration particularly as it pertains to the labor market in agriculture is a good thing because if there are no immigrants to work the fields, that means Americans will HAVE to do it and it will be good for them as they will get off their fat asses and do some physical labor.
Are you worried that your fellow child molesters won't be allowed to pick strawberries?
And fuckin' LOL at you quivering in terror at the thought that you might have to get off your fat ass or starve to death.
"Why don’t you tell us again how restricting immigration particularly as it pertains to the labor market in agriculture is a good thing because if there are no immigrants to work the fields, that means Americans will HAVE to do it and it will be good for them as they will get off their fat asses and do some physical labor."
Why do you not supply your OWN straw men instead of insisting others do so for you?
No, I actually said that. It was in response to sarc's assertion that we need a perpetual supply of peon labor to pick crops, because Americans won't do it.
There are no facts anymore. Just opinions that are judged by the politics of the source.
Nice preemptive ad hominem so you and Jeff can ignore uncomfortable information.
Good work sarc. Youre learning from your boyfriend jeff.
Notice how uniform jeffey's concerns are and then compare them to reality. The viewpoints people believe should be represented include that people of different races should be treated equally, and that people should be treated as individuals rather than members of groups guilty of the sins of their group members. Jeffey doesn't want these viewpoints represented as they are "smuggling bullshit into the discourse", but he can't openly admit that because he pretends he doesn't oppose these ideas. So he misdirects what left wingers are doing. But the key is that he always frames the issues to obscure what the left is doing to minimize the criticism they take.
"So what about the claims in the middle of this continuum? Such as, say, the 2020 election was stolen? Or that vaccines cause autism, or the COVID vaccine is worse than the COVID disease itself? Or that man-made climate change is a “hoax”? They are false claims, but nonetheless a lot of people believe in them. Should a credible news organization platform and ratify these false claims by presenting “both sides”? Sometimes “diversity of viewpoint” is really just code for smuggling in bullshit into the discourse."
How about "men can become women if they really, really want it?" Diversity needed for that viewpoint?
How about "There are no real negatives to illegal immigration"? No need for diversity there, I suspect.
How about "We should make massive changes based on climate change models that have never worked and provide zero predictive value"? No need for diversity there, huh?
Funny that two out of the three examples you provided -- transgender stuff and climate change -- are areas where almost all actual experts on the subjects are in uniform agreement. So I really don't think we need tons of diversity viewpoint on those subjects where the "diverse" viewpoint is just going to be spewing nonsense that is unsupported by evidence and goes against the scientific consensus.
That said, I would bet there is a healthy amount of diversity of viewpoints on those subjects among NPR's 1,800 journalists.
are areas where almost all actual experts on the subjects are in uniform agreement.
Well, only among the experts who get face time on cable news anyway.
And among those who are allowed to publish in journals hostile to the very notion that they could be wrong. If you don't publish things that disagree with your religious doctrine, then obviously the religious doctrine is correct.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex-11581638089
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
You all need to own up to your mistakes.
THIS.
No, let’s give them all a voice. Galileo’s views were once considered fringe theory–his enemies tried to silence him. It's no different from what NPR is doing to Berliner.
If you think a viewpoint is totally wrong, then go disprove it. Censorship is not the answer.
A media company that did not completely dismiss non-progressive opinions out of hands might have fared better.
Certainly does not describe Reason but if you don't have government coffers I guess a billionaire benefactor that hob nobs with a literal nazi socialist is the next best thing.
All one had to do to know this about PBS and NPR is scan some of their programming over the last few decades, including the few token conservative shows sprinkled lightly through the weekly schedule. "Firing Line" (1966-1999) and "Free to Choose" (1980-1981) are the only two I can think of at the moment? Can anyone else think of ANY other examples of alternative viewpoints ever having been presented by PBS or NPR?
_On the Media_ is a good example of long standing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Media . I used to listen and chuckle at how late they would realize what ostriches they'd been — over and over.
"And this, I believe, is the most damaging development at NPR: the absence of viewpoint diversity."
This is hilarious. Conservatives and libertarians have been complaining about this obvious feature of leftist institutions for 30 fucking years.
They started out good, then drifted leftward over the 1980s, to the point where following the 1994 Congressional elections they were suddenly nakedly pandering to the "right" because for a year or two their bread appeared to be buttered on the other side from what they were used to. Then after that danger to their funding appeared to have passed, they went back, becoming unlistenable by the turn of the century, so yeah, about 30 years.
I was going to say if you count "The train is nearing the station!" with "The train has arrived at the station." it's been closer to 50 yrs. or more, but this is a decent objective illustration or rebuttal.
The rise of Rush Limbaugh and talk radio and the pandering as the result of the 1994 Congressional elections weren't because NPR had a faithful conservative audience as the result of a longstanding reputation for representing both sides equally.
...though Berliner's piece carefully noted that he still believes the outlet is important and should continue to receive government funding.
Nuance has no place at NPR.
The acronym DEI ostensibly stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion—and the public is learning precisely what those terms really mean.
You mean the idiot public is learning what it means. The section of society with functioning brains has been pointing it out and proving it in spades for years.
Now do Fox News.
Fox News that routinely has Democrats as guests and sometimes hosts?
I’ll admit, I don’t really watch any of the cable news stations unless they’re on somewhere, but I can’t say I’ve heard of them excommunicating one of their people due to wrong think, save for maybe Tucker.
You do Fox News, Sarc. I see internet clips but it's not available on my provider, so enlighten me.
It streams for free on their web page.
So do you have satellite or something? I find it hard to believe you can get cable in Fort Nelson.
What’s your favorite Dinesh D’Souza propaganda film? Since you simply regurgitate his stupid BS.
He's a more credible guy than the head of NPR, that's for sure. Neither he nor Fox News use any government funding either.
I don't watch cable news. Would rather gouge my eyes out with a fork.
Aren't you the one always screaming about people claiming trump is innocent because dems did it first, but ignore dem crimes and only go after Trump.
Weird what about ism. Who are you signaling to? Jeff or shrike?
"Now do Fox News."
Not government funded and far more ideologically diverse
Does Fox News receive public funding?
The guy is in denial about the fact that NPR has always been an "Progressive" playpen, since well before his 25-year tenure at NPR. He acknowledges that some will say this, but denies (on no relevant evidence whatsoever) that it is true. But it IS true. And he was complicit in it.
The acronym DEI ostensibly stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion—and the public is learning precisely what those terms really mean.
Don't Ever Inhale?
I still prefer Didn't Earn It
Purity Tests are a bitch.
The guy's view of "liberal bias" is not airing MAGA bullshit. Good for NRP.
MAGA bullshit = Anything that goes against Molly's shitlib beliefs.
NPR fires disloyal employee. Women and minorities hurt most.
Berliner's suspension was for totally legitimate reasons and to be expected given the circumstances -- you can't expect to break the rules by writing for another publication without permission without consequences, especially when you do it in an effort to torch your current workplace and superiors.
And it is impossible for me to fathom how his *voluntary resignation* could possibly "prove[] he was right all along." It would be one thing if he was terminated for expressing his views, but he wasn't! Not to mention, NPR's network includes more than 1,800 journalists, so the fact that 50 of them wrote a mean letter about Berliner hardly proves that there is a stifling lack of viewpoint diversity, let alone that the lack of viewpoint diversity has materially impacted editorial or journalistic decisions.
You have never heard the phrase “hostile work environment”?
Here's a quote from Politico:
But as is often the case when employers punish their workers, Berliner’s transgression was not as much about what he did (write an outside piece without permission) but what he said. Let’s not kid ourselves. He was docked a week’s pay for his message, not his conduct. If Berliner had, say, written a poem for the New Yorker, or reviewed a book for the Washington Post without first getting a sign-off from NPR, he might have gotten congratulations from his bosses or at the very worst, a polite scolding for not following the rules. Berliner’s real “crime” is that he trashed his own institution in public, and did it loudly, and when you do that in most places of employment, a sharp reprimand is sure to follow.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/17/the-real-reason-npr-squashed-uri-berliner-00152866
I don't think you know what the phrase "hostile work environment" refers to, because it definitely is not a "hostile work environment" for your coworkers to think you're an asshole after you write a hit piece dragging them through the mud.
And I never disputed that the suspension was, at least in part, related to what he wrote. In fact, I said as much! Again, when you publicly torch your employer and colleagues, it should not come as a surprise that there will be professional consequences. Obviously, an employer has an interest in dissuading its employees from committing rule violations that actually negatively impact the employer's interests, as opposed to a harmless rule violation like writing a poem for the New Yorker.
I don’t think you know what the phrase “hostile work environment” refers to, because it definitely is not a “hostile work environment” for your coworkers to think you’re an asshole after you write a hit piece dragging them through the mud.
What, the totally honest report that these people are radical Democrats and their "reporting" is completely biased in favor of the DNC, to the point they were working with Democratic federal employees to parrot the DNC party line? As others have already noted, he didn't do anything other than confirm what anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear already knew.
Kords: Would you ever think that suspending a whistleblower is for "totally legitimate reasons" if he was exposing a conservative organization?
As I commented on Bluesky:
"You heard it here, folks: Berliner was 'punished for heresy' by trying and failing to get himself fired, then resigning in a huff and claiming he was "cancelled." Just like Bari Weiss.
"You'd think even Robby Soave would be ashamed of this level of intellectual dishonesty."
Mike Masnick and Ken White -- both real journalists, as opposed to whatever Robby Soave is -- commented that no, you would not think that.
Berliner was punished without pay for speaking against his company. Why are you downplaying that? Robby isn't being dishonest.
You do not believe in the freedom of speech. Repent.
As I commented on Bluesky:
Pissed that Elon balanced out your propaganda organ, eh?
Mike Masnick and Ken White — both real journalists
LOL, please.