Determination
54
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Minneapolis Urban League against the Minneapolis Star and Tribune
Ronald Edwards, president of the Minneapolis Urban League,
complained that an analysis article in the newspaper was inaccurate,
"jaundiced" and misrepresented the Urban League position on the issue
of the appointment of Mary Emma Hixson as head of the Minneapolis Civil
Rights Department.
Background: Edwards argued that there was
"significant information and extensive evidence to support the League's
position and contention that the Hixson appointment and the conflict
between (the League) and Minneapolis Mayor Don Fraser was never one
of race, as purported by the mayor in his indictment of the Urban
League and the Black, Hispanic and Native American communities, (but)
a prerequisite for hiring the new civil rights director for the City
of Minneapolis." A letter of June 19 from Jan Hively, deputy to the
mayor, to civil rights commissioners was presented as evidence of
the mayor's position and it was noted that the Star and Tribune was
aware of the letter and its contents before the July 8 analysis.
Edwards said that the League's objections to Hixson
were for reasons other than racial, that the newspaper was aware of
that, and that it left a "significant hole in the entire scenario"
to lend credence to the mayor's position that it was an issue of race.
It was a disservice to the League's position, which made reference
to race only with respect to the June 19 memo.
Edwards also complained that the newspaper ran with
the story a picture of him "which looked like it could have been taken
out of a police lineup." He added that in two later articles dealing
with the Minnesota Racing Commission and Rogers Cable System, the
newspaper ignored important contributions of the Urban League. The
Council agreed to discuss the photo but otherwise limited discussion
to the July 8 article.
Response of the news organization: The newspaper
argued that the analysis piece was accurate, was well-researched and
that the June 19 memo made no material difference to the story and
that the newspaper had better sources than the memo on which the story
was built.
Determination of the Council: Race as it related
to the selection of a new director of the Minneapolis Civil Rights
Department was well-documented in the July 8 article. The article
stated that some of the objections raised to the Hixson appointment
involved qualifications. Edwards agreed in answer to several specific
questions from the Council that he was quoted accurately in the article
and that the facts presented in the article were accurate, but maintained
that the absence of information about the June 19 memo materially
distorted the League's position.
The article presents no direct link between any racial
issue of the Hixson appointment and the Urban League or Edwards, other
than his own words which he says were quoted accurately. The article
does not refer to the June 19 memo to indicate that there was some
preference in the mayor's office for appointment of other than a black
male to the position, but does use direct quotations from other sources
to make the same point.
In the view of the Council, the July 8 article was
well-written, fair in portrayal of an important, sensitive public
issue, and did not misrepresent the Urban League's position.
The photo of Edwards used by the Star and Tribune
was perhaps unfortunate, but under the circumstances does not, we
think, rise to the level of a meritorious grievance. We note that
the newspaper has expressed a willingness to arrange for a photograph
of the grievant that would be more suitable, and we hope this will
be done.
The grievance against the newspaper is denied.
Concurring: Ashmore, Brooks, Casey, Chucker,
Gilson, Graven, Higgins, Peek, Persons, Ryan, Selby, Simonett
Dissenting opinion: Myers - The headline sets
the stage: "Concern over race surrounds rights pick." The article
does mention other than racial objections to the Hixson appointment,
but the headline tells us where to focus. To say that Hixson isn't
"qualified" as a minority, the article need only point out that she
is white. To say that she lacks qualifications, or is qualified for
the job, we need more information about what she has done than we
get in the July 8 article. Edwards questioned Hixson's qualifications,
he says, to the newspaper reporter before the article was written.
It would seem appropriate for the qualification issue
to be covered in greater depth than describing her as "a pleasant,
well-informed lawyer active in the feminist movement who has worked
for the last 2-1/2 years as deputy director of the Missouri Human
Rights Commission." What did she do for people of color in those 2-1/2
years?
I don't think Edwards was saying race wasn't an issue
at all, he was saying the city officials of Minneapolis made race
an issue by overlooking local talent and, he alleges, by a preference
not stated publicly but referred to in the June 19 letter for other
than a black male for the job. If the argument is "we have good minority
candidates here, why select an out-of-state white woman?" we should
be told more about what made her the committee's choice.
Deputy Mayor Hively gets the lead quote in the article
saying she was surprised when she met Mary Emma Hixson: "I thought
she would be black." The color-blind selection process Hively and
the mayor prided themselves on cries out for examination. Can you
have a color-blind affirmative action program? The article says that
the committee presented a list of four white finalists, and Hively
thought, "My God, the committee can't do this to us." Later we are
told who the other finalists are, and one is Hispanic: Marilyn McClure
Vigil, head of the Minnesota Human Rights Commission under former
Governor Al Quie. I'm curious to know why the reporter doesn't question
the count of four whites.
And wouldn't it be interesting to follow the fact
that the deputy mayor is so insulated from all this controversy that
the whole business surprised her? Edwards thought so, I gather, and
I agree. If we can say, and I think we can, that Edwards' grievance
went to the point that the article didn't describe the real story
behind the appointment, I think he is correct and that the Council
should have upheld the complaint.
The question of the picture of Edwards used with
the story should not be dismissed too lightly. The paper has several
pictures of Edwards, and its selection of one which makes him look
almost menacing was made either deliberately, or out of insensitivity.
I trust that it was the latter. Balance the impact of the photo of
Edwards against the select use of the word "pleasant" in describing
Hixson to better understand Edwards' objection to the photo. I hope
that the Star and Tribune will use a better picture of Edwards next
time, and that this complaint will bring pause to other photo selections
representing minorities, when similar choices might arise.
December 7, 1984
Read
Determination 55
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
