The white man suing the New York Times for discriminating against white men
People at the paper say the claim is absurd. “I’m sorry, there are plenty of white guys at the top of the New York Times. Not really something that’s holding you back,” said the reporter. To name one prominent example, Joe Kahn, the paper’s executive editor, is a white male, as are many members of the masthead.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The white man suing the New York Times for discriminating against white men
Story by Charlotte Klein • 7h • 3 min read
Story by Charlotte Klein • 7h • 3 min read
A white male New York Times employee filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that the paper discriminated against him by not giving him a promotion because he is a white male. On Tuesday, the EEOC, now controlled by a Trump appointee who has vowed to help wage the president’s war against DEI culture, filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Times, arguing that the paper’s efforts to satisfy its diversity goals amounted to “unlawful employment practices.” Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha has dismissed the allegations as “politically motivated.”
,
The paper itself was the first to break the news of the suit, but did not name the employee who made the complaint. Reporters within the paper have been scrambling to figure out the employee’s identity, driven in part by bafflement that one of their own colleagues would sell out the paper to the administration, which has used tools of the federal government to attack the press. “You’re giving the Trump administration a weapon while they’re trying to persecute journalists,” said one reporter.
,
“This has been kind of a shitshow behind the scenes — people trying to figure out who the aggrieved person is,” said another Times staffer. The release of the complaint on Tuesday narrowed the speculation to Bryant Rousseau, a senior editor and producer on the Times’s international desk who has been with the paper for more than a decade. Rousseau’s LinkedIn resume is identical to that of the charging party in the lawsuit.
,
According to the EEOC complaint, Rousseau was passed over for the deputy real estate editor position despite meeting “all requirements” for the position, including experience with real estate journalism. “He was not among the candidates given a final panel interview for the position” because he “did not match the race and/or sex characteristics NYT sought to increase in its leadership through its diversity actions and aspirations,” the complaint argues. The final pool of candidates was composed of a white female, a Black male, an Asian female, and a multiracial female. The multiracial female ultimately got the job even though “her experience did not meet all its stated basic requirements, including the job description’s stated requirement for experience with real estate journalism,” the complaint states.
,
People at the paper say the claim is absurd. “I’m sorry, there are plenty of white guys at the top of the New York Times. Not really something that’s holding you back,” said the reporter. To name one prominent example, Joe Kahn, the paper’s executive editor, is a white male, as are many members of the masthead.
,
Rhoades Ha, the Times spokesperson, said, “The allegation centers on a single personnel decision for one of over 100 deputy positions across the newsroom, yet the EEOC’s filing makes sweeping claims that ignore the facts to fit a predetermined narrative.”
,
The employee originally filed the complaint in July 2025, with the EEOC office in New York. One staffer noted that it could now be impossible for the Times to take action against the complainant: “This person now has job security for good after this suit. What a mess.”
,
Tags
Who is online
132 visitors
There is no end to how much the Trump administration likes to fuck with people. 2 1/2 more years.
and how he loathes the NY Times, this was a gift for him. I'm now curious as to was this a legitimate gripe, or was there, like everything else that involves Trump, some sort of corrupt payoff. Example maybe, if you take up this suit, we will compensate you in some mannerism, or possibly we will keep your name from being released from the Epstein files if you help us tarnish Trumps 'enemy', for truthfully reporting on one giant corrupt POS !?!
Good. Probably a lot more where thar came from at the times. After all, the times openly supports racism.
the interesting thing is the times is likely to only hire progressive racists who support racial discrimination. Though Once they are the ones discriminated it may change their minds. Will they sacrifice themselves to salve their white guilt or will they risk social and professional ostracism if they speak up against racism?
Quite the dilemma for the progressive racist who no doubt supports discriminating against other white people.
Well, if it is suing that wins. . . . Let's fight suits with suits! It all reminds me of similar things like, "my locks got locks;" "my alarms got alarms." and now - "my lawsuit has lawsuits!"
You get a suit! And you get a suit! Let's wear out the courts, and the 'Supremes' too! Oh, that's it. Get Justice Thomas to make a bigger fool of himself for 'suits' sake! Maybe one day he will pass a mirror, look at himself, look again, and realize that the 'story of his life' has been to live a sham. With 'friends' and conservatives like Justice Thomas. . . the Klan will no longer be needed!
Justice Thomas, wake up. You have been asleep a terribly long time now. Really, we need you to wake the 'blank' up! WE CAN DO BAD ALL BY OURSELVES. . . we do not need a black in high places dumping on us too!
Maybe he’s just too much of an asshole to merit promotion? His actions lean that direction.
It is now a core tenet of Republican belief that white people are the true victims of racism.
It really is amazing how some folk can be so fucking dense and self-absorbed.
If the complaint is true you don't see an issue with it?
In the real world white people are seldom victims of racism.
But some, usually white self-important bigots, think that even one example of a white being discriminated against is unacceptable. Sure, they challenge and 'poo-poo' every claim of discrimination coming from other groups, but when it's a white male with even a sniff of discriminated against him the bigots circle their wagons and start screaming about reverse-racism, injustice and how terrible any discrimination against whites is. It's what they do. You can't be a white supremacist without getting upset by this story. Everyone else reads this and thinks "if true, welcome to how every other culture has had to live for the last 200+ years of American history".
I was listening to a podcast and the subject of the Supreme Court ruling on racial gerrymandering came up, with the host and guest agreeing that from the end of Reconstruction until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 there were very few blacks (or any other racial minority) in Congress (and there were NO black US senators for the 90 years between.) Prior to the Voting Rights Act there was no "equality" in the US government. Almost none.
Most white conservatives today would probably say the Voting Rights Act was a low point for the country.
If the complaint is true, could this be one of those cases?
It could also be like the guy at JP Morgan who recently accused his boss of sexually harrasment ... the twist is that the woman wasn't his boss and times and places he claimed the harrasement happened were where she was in a completely different city.
It could but that does not answer my question does it?
...it's an anomaly and is just one complaint on the scale of justice for white males versus the thousands of examples of discrimination that occur every day for many minorities. I'm not saying to ignore the discrimination, let this guy have his day in court and if discrimination is proven then he should be compensated. But don't try and use this outlier as some proof that discrimination against white males is happening everywhere. Doing something like that would be silly and only add evidence of that persons own deep seated bigotry exposed by their flailing and failing attempts at equivalence.
I am not, my point is that it is possible. Notice some folks dancing around the obvious answer?[✘]
Well of course it's possible. Just about anything is possible. There are always outliers that don't follow the majority. It's just that when trying to determine what, let's say, the feeding habits of a rabbit are, you don't use the one outlier in the lab that nibbled on a bit of raw chicken to suggest perhaps all rabbits are carnivores.
So, your point is that discrimination against white males "is possible" (as if that needed to be proven) just like it's possible to get a rabbit to eat meat if they're hungry enough. But in general, it's not happening which means it would be pretty stupid of anyone to go around shouting "Hey everyone, rabbits are actually carnivores and they could come for your pets in the middle of the night! They could burrow under your fences and drink the blood of your dog while you sleep, and you'd never even know it!". Sadly, I think that's how most bigots read the story above. "Hey everyone, white people are being discriminated against everywhere and especially in liberal cities like NY! We can't let these liberals and minorities burrow under our fences and drink the blood of our jobs while we sleep! Arrggghhhh!".
I am talking about this case. You are still making it something it is not. First rant was not enough?
omg I'm so sick and tired of perks and benefits being foisted upon me simply because of my whiteness.
Dare I say, that some white republicans can whine and lie with the best of 'them'? They have no interest in fairness. Just mockery of anything that is "Other" to their authoritative orders.
You know, what is interesting about all this is, for the first time I can see the connection to the past that some conservatives are pushing: They have ALWAYS been ONE-WAY. They have never agreed with liberals being free and equal in this country. . . when it comes to leveling the slanted realities they place on the 'fields' of play.
Interesting. If true it seems he was discriminated against. If the roles were reversed and he was a person of color and the others were all white males I am sure the screaming would be the same, just the other side doing it.
That is the allegation which, so far, is just an accusation with nothing but circumstantial evidence to support it. While I'm sure it's fun to play the "If" game, it's not much different than me saying " If the allegations are true, it seems Donald Trump raped that 13-year-old". Let this guy have his day in court and we'll see if it turns out he's the new hero of the white conservative bully bigot party because they get so excited when they find that rare penny of injustice against them which lets them feel vindicated in their bigotry and believe their bitterness towards minorities was all justified. "See! We're victims too! Don't you dare try to claim we're the villains of the story anymore! It's time to put white Christian males back where they belong! On the white marble pedestal of history!".
Nice rant but if true it looks like he was discriminated against. That is the only thing I said.[✘]
That is the 'issue' as you see it, eh? That is, in order to help minorities get equality and equity in our society. . . just keep telling them to trust some conservatives to have their best interests at heart. Never mind, looking at the 'issue' HOLISTICALLY - just go ONE WAY and other extenuating circumstances can kiss off! Wow. What a way to 'fix' (not) a fractured country!
What I see is if there is discrimination there is discrimination. Some seem to believe discrimination (and racism) can only go one way.
Better than 50 years of dems saying they will take care of them and not doing a damn thing for them after they get elected.
More discrimination is not a way to fix discrimination.
Okay, let's think this through. I have a question for you to answer and I hope you do not for my edification but for reason continuity:
1. Is there such a think as POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION and NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION?
I am not clear at all that you being a conservative are qualified to tell me, or liberals, what is in their best interest! Certainly not in this present conservative political 'climate.'
As a conservative, it is highly probably likely you are in a good position to tell us about NEGATIVE discrimination especially now that a six conservative majority court with power over all of the country presently has decided to allow the Southern states to put minorities 'down' in representation. . .while lifting whites back up as their 'superiors' using
AT-LARGE voting.
GPT-5 mini (AI):
At-large voting in the 1940s–1950s: concise summary
Definition and mechanics: At-large systems elect multiple representatives citywide or district-wide rather than from single-member geographic districts; voters cast ballots for several seats and top vote-getters win.
Political effect in that era: Widely used in U.S. cities and counties; functioned to consolidate political control by majority groups and established parties, diluting geographically concentrated minority voting power.
Civil‑rights and racial impact: In the 1940s–50s, at-large elections frequently blocked Black and other minority communities from electing preferred candidates despite local majorities in specific neighborhoods; this helped sustain segregated power structures and limited minority influence on municipal policy, services, policing, and schools.
Legal and reform context (pre‑1960s): Few court remedies existed in the 1940s–50s; challenges were relatively limited and often unsuccessful because modern Voting Rights Act standards and later Supreme Court rulings had not yet developed. Reform efforts were mainly local political campaigns, charter changes, or federal civil‑rights organizing that gained traction later.
Transition toward change: The pattern and harms of at-large systems during these decades energized civil‑rights advocacy and laid groundwork for later litigation and legislation (1960s–70s) that established single-member districts, proportional remedies, and statutory protections to improve minority representation.
Key takeaway: In the 1940s–1950s, at-large voting was a common mechanism that, in practice, maintained majority control and suppressed minority electoral representation until later civil‑rights advances prompted systemic challenges and reforms.
MAGA supporters, as I have mentioned before, . . .some of us (if not most of us) SEE you all and the 'repeat' games some republicans and some conservatives play! We know what a conservative and political 'Cracker' is too. And no, this is not the racist use of the term.
Political cracker-ism can (is) be a term used in some conservative and southern states to define the politics they participate in today.
GPT-5 mini (AI):
In Florida politics the demographic/identity described as "crackers" — historically poor, rural, white Floridians, especially with deep multi‑generational Southern roots — exists and has political visibility. They influence local and state politics through voting patterns, cultural symbolism, and policy preferences (e.g., support for guns, small government, hunting/outdoors culture, skepticism of elites).
How they appear in Florida politics:
Electoral base: Strong presence in rural counties (northern and central Florida) where conservative, populist candidates perform well.
Cultural signaling: Candidates use symbols and rhetoric tied to rural Southern identity (hunting, Confederate memory in some areas, Christian conservatism, "Florida cracker" heritage events).
Policy alignment: Tend to favor conservative positions on taxes, regulation, social issues, and law-and-order policies.
Political organizations: Local GOP structures, evangelical networks, and county-level political machines often mobilize these voters.
Notes:
* "Cracker" can be an offensive slur; many analysts instead use neutral terms like "rural white voters" or "old‑stock Southerners." Some Floridians embrace "Florida Cracker" as a heritage identity (cowboy/cattle culture) distinct from its slur usage.
Influence varies by region and demographic change: growing urban/suburban populations and in‑migration from other states dilute their statewide dominance but they remain politically important in specific districts and close statewide contests.
* Deeper questioning of the term usage will inform the questioner that the term "Cracker" is used in political settings in Georgia and other southern states.